K. Saidulu v. PLANNING

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behatf of the respondent Nos'1 and 3, Sri S' Suman, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No'2 and Sri M. Ram Gopal Rao, Iearned Standing Counsel for ZPPS and MPPS and GPSS, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos'4 and 5. 2 The Detitio n er a DDroa che the Court see ino Draver asu der: "...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 1993 as per Go Ms. No. 687 dated 03/10/1977 and G.O.Ms.No. 661, dated 23/lOl2OO8 to till date by paying starving wages of Rs. 4OO0/- per month from 28 long years ignoring legitimate wages payable to the petitioner as per 4 SN,.I $p 1079q 2021 Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 194 I and Section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 R/W Articl,_. 14, 16, 27, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Consritution, as l- ghty i egat, unjust, unfair and violation of the provisions oF t re said Acts and our Constitution and prays to direct the .espondents herein to treat the petitioner as a regular on: n the last grade post from the date of appointmenr by a oplying the principle laid by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in C_ \. No. 6798 of 2019 dated 02/09/2019 in the case of prrrr r Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC - 516) and with furrt-er direction to release all the consequential monetary beneFiI of I,he last grade post w.e.f. 07/10/1993 to till date from : re ro Ume with 100 percent compensation on arrears of pa1 as oer the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C,\ No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 dated t9/O2/2}lg in the case of U 1 on of India Vs. Avatar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) by awar iing heavy cost and pass... "

3. Le rned cou nse! aD ea rin Detitioner Dla cinq reliance on the averm ent E made in the nt _ ^/rit oetition 'endered bv b € half of s rv es fil di rta in t d s d s r r nore than a h tio eri n I tled for the s r e r tn se w eti o I. PERUSED THE REcoRD:- ) SN, J wp .10799_2021 DISCUS SION AND CO NCLU SION:-

4. Learned r sub counsel aDoeannq on behalf of the t case rs souarelv overed bv the order of this Court, dated

o8.09.2 O1O Dass d in W.P.No .24377 of 20 o7 reoorted i n LD. Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.78 2of 2(JLt(L A)

2010. dated 1O.O6.20 3 and also order. dated 19.09.20L7 passed in W.P.No.272 t7 ot 2Ot7 reported in 2018 ( 2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21 .O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No. 23057 ol 2Ol reoorted in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standino counsel aooearin o on behalf of the resDo dent No.4 submats that the r ievance of hin he n Writ n had been addressed to the resoondents herein as on d te and the refore- t he etit D roner ca nnot com in inacti on th e a r s o her ln tn the et t toner n a d h ence-t herelief asD ra verl fo rb the ln he n wit r n n e iss nd mus hereu nder as s uoht for and the D titaoner m vbe flevan cea Dut- directed to out-f rtht heD etitioner' h s 6 SNI !\ p_10799 202 t forth in th Dresent Wri Petition bvw a of a deta I s here i r and en ation to th uDon recet tof he aid r on st er the rea ona le iod. tion th tn a ord o , I nts would lw, within a

6. Learned cou n sel aopearrnq nb half o f rsDute t sai sub missi onm ade rv he le a rned standinq cou nsel ADDeannqo behalf oft e resDon dent No.4 t t .l e

7. The AoexCou rt ln the i dqm ent l€DO scc (L&S) in Prem S hvS tate ofU a r Prad ln 202 1 th rs a ar 36 un er -"i, 'cor"rnrnlni "36. There are some of the employees who hav I not been regularized in spite of having rendered tfre senli :es for :O- 40 or more years whereas they have been sup: lJlnuatea. As they have worked in the work_chu,g"a , b-tlsnment, not against any particular project, their- servic,. ; ougnt to have been regularized under ihe i ,si.uctions -itut" a-nd even as per the decision of tfris court i Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court i, ine saia decision has taid down thai in case ;";i;"; ,ur" o""n rcndered for more than ten years without the ( ( ver of the Court's order, as one-time measure,- the- i, rr'ices Ue regularized. of such employees. In the facts oF the case, those employees who have worked for ten yea r ,- o. rno." n:ru been regularized. It woutd not' Lr, prope. to regulate them for consideration of regularizatio,,r'uf otne.s have been regularized, we direct ttrit tlrJi Jces oe :!_9.r,1_d. -,, 7 SN,.I r\p 30799 2021 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 rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for ouroose of DEnston li hmen 8 The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad Dastrict PWD Literate Dailv Wa o CE mDlovees Association Vs. Karnataka rep rted in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 39 5 laid orinciole that the State should not kee Dao erson tn temDorarv or adhoc service for lono oeriod a nd have to treat such oersons as oular one. 9 Para No.53 o t he of the iudoment of the A oex Court te of Karnataka and others Vs, Umadevi, dated in the 10.04.2006 reoorted in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1is extracted hereu nd er: - 1 "53. One e cneat needs to he cla rifipd - Th p re ma w lre cases where irreqular aDDointments (not illeoal as exolained in S.V. Nara vanaDDa aooointmen 7 1 1 7 and referred to in oara 1 5 above. of dulv o ua I ified vacant Dosts mioht have persons in dulv sanctione nd the emolovees have continued to been made work for ten vears orm ft reb ut rnrit nr rt L 79 4 s N n 2 t B 8 n srr.l wp 10799_2lll overnments an intervention of or ers of the courts og of tribunals. The ouestion of reqularization of the sr1 vices of such emotovees mav ha ve to be considere( ! on merits in the lioht of the ori ciDles settled bv th i ; Court in the cases abovereferr d to and in the iqht of this iudqment. In that context, the Un on _ of India, the ! rumentalities should take steos to reqularize a:; a one-time measure the servi ular lv appointed. r rore in dulv who have w rk sa nction ed nosts but not und r cover o I orders of the courts or of tribunal s and should furth,:' ensure that reqular recruitmen ts are undertaken o fill those vaca nt san ctioned osts that reouire t E be filled uo. in cases where tem Dorarv emplovees o ail wa ers are beinq now em Dloved. Th ess n ust be set in motion within six months from this datr t t h e h f I

10. The iudoment of t e Aoex Court date,l 20.12 .2024, reported in 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jaol to Anita and oth ers v. Union of India and thers, and the rel eva nt DaraoraDh Nos.1 2 13 24,26.27 and 28 E re extracted hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part.time workers," the appellants performed :hese essential tasks on a daily and contir uous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Iheir engagement was not sporadic or teml, )rary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, re1 ular, and akin to the responsibilities typt cally associated with sanctioned posts. Mor e cver, the respondents did not engage any )ther personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 9 SN, J \!p 30799 2021 s The claim bv the re oond ents that 13. these were not rqqula r Dosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work Derformed by the appellants was perennial and fundamenta! to the functionino 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 in h e rent 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 hiqhliohts the iudiciary's role in rectifvinq crrrh m i srlaccifiratianc and e nclt rtnrr that workers receive fair treatment. l0 r_) SN, J *p_30799_1021

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi ';upr61 sought to curtail the practice of backdoor ( ntries and ensure appointments adhered to constilt tional principles, it is regrettable that its principlr ,s are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny s . This legitimate claims of long serving employe€ judgment aimed to distinguish between 'i legal" "irregular" appoint r lents. It cateqoricallvhe ld that emolove (s ln eno agedin irreo u la r aooointm nts, who we dulv sa nctio n ed Dosts and had :i :rved contin uouslv for more than ten vears li rould be cons idered for reo u la rizatio nasa I One- time measure. However , the laudable int:nt of the judgment is being subverted when inst t.ttions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately reji:r t the claims of employees, even in cases wher( their appointments are not illegal, but mere 1 lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gove: tment departments often cite the judgment in Unt r Devi (supra) to argue that no vested ri<; tt to regularization exists for temporary empl ryees, judgment's e xplicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regulariz;t ion is appropriate. This selective aoolication di- ;torts g :ivelv wea ontzlno I aoa in st emolovee wh<I have i nd isoensable servi ces _ over rendered decad es, r ose d m In light of these considerations, n our 27. is imperative for gover lment opinion, it departments to lead by example in provid t g fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, es: :cially when their roles are integral to the organi;: rtion's functioning, not only contravenes interrri tional labour standards but also exposes the orgart zation to legal challenges and undermines emp loyee morale. By ensuring fair emplol ment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary liti-t; ttion, SN. J \rp i0799 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 contributang to the overall 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 .lO.2OlB are quashed; reo ul The ooel la nts shal! be It. n dutv fo thwith and their back o to hwith. servtces a Howev er. the aoo Ilants shall ot be Decunlarv entitled benefits/back waq es for the oe riod thev ave not worked for but would bee ntitled to continu itv of services for the said Deriod and the same for their Dost- would be counte retiraI benefits."

11. The Ju doment of t e Aoex Cou dated 31.01 .2025 reoorted in 2O25 IN sC 144 in *SHRIPAL AN D ANOT ER v. NAGAR NIGAM, G HAZIABAD ". in oartic lar. the re eva nt pa ra Nos.15 to 19areextracte d hereu der: *15. It is manifest t at the ADoellant Work men conti n uouslv rendered their servic s over seve ral d l2 r-) SN. J sp 30799 202 t c r eEm Even if certa in well-est ab lis;l red uste r rolls were otr)' du ed in r's f ilure o fur ish uch recOrds- de Dite d i rection sto do so-a llovr; a n adverse i n ferenc e labo ur lurr sprud e ce. Indian la bour law str nol disfa perpetual dailv-waoe or contractual e1 toaqemen circu m stances whe re the work ts _ rermanent in nature. Morall and le a llv, work, 's who fu lfil onqoin q municipal r cannot be dismissed summarilv a cu la rlv in the abse nce of a qenr aqreement. At this juncture, it would b recall the broader critique of indefin employment practices as done by a rece this court in Jaggo v. Union of India pa ragra phs : di sDen sa ble, I ne contractor : a ppropriate to l3 "temporary" r. judgement of ir the following reoui rements ve, lr aft v -characterized "22. The pervasive misuse of tempor: -y employment contracts, as exemplified in this r:i se, reflects a broader systemic issue that adr ersely affects workers'. rights and job security. n the private sector, the rise of the gig econom), has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, by lack of benefi: , jobiecurity, and Fair treatment. Such practic: ; - have been criticized for exploiting workers ar r undermining labour standards. Government institut cns, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairn _r ;s and justice, bear a n even greater responsibility :o avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse cf temporary contracts/ it not only mirrors the det. mental trends observed in the gig economy bu: also sets a concerning precedent that can erode pr blic trust in governmental operations. p l3 SN, J lvP 30799 2021

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 manirest in several ways: . Misuse of "Temoora rv" Labe s: Emolovees rw k that is es reqular and inteoral to the functionin o of an institution are often labelled as "temoorarv" or "contractua1," even when their roles mirror emolovees. Such those of m iscla ssification deprives workers of the dionitv, securitv, and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to. desoite oerforminq 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 flnd themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creatang 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 l4 SN, J \rp 30799_201r a deliberate effort to bypass the obl lation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benel:s: Temporary employees are oFten denied funda I ental benefits such as pension, provident fund, hr: rlth insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades, This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardshi6, especially in cases of illness, retirement, l- unforeseen circu msta n ces. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge t te Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wacti s with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrelt ably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant \ y'orkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still un rertain status. While the High Court recognized the impor tance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatio r. it failed to afford them continuity of service or meanlnc I .Ll back wages commensurate with the degree of stat-:ory violation evident on record. 17, In light of these considerations, tl e Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Worknrr n stands in violation oF the most basic labour law princit les. Once it is established that their services were termi lated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the t .p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev werrl enqaqed in oerennial duties. these workr 's can ot be essentia releoated to DerDetual unce intv. Wir ile concerns of mu nicioal budoet and comD I ance with SN, J wP-30199 2021 recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns n lv the Em lo er of :t aelra r a uitable en tlem ts r hrl r riqhts of workmen who have served continuouslv an de facto reqular roles for an extended oeriod. ru frr n t ha larrilirrralo limitations canno nfine the

18. The imouqned order of the Hioh Court, to the f tur dailv-waqe enqaqement without continuitv or meaninqful back waqes, is herebv set aside with the followinq directions: 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, 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 Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) wlthin four weeks From the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be of service and all counted for continui ch as senio nse uenti n elioibilitv for o motions, if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 507o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their 16 SN, J \p 10799 2021 actual reinstatement. The Responden_ Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thr€( months From the date of their reinstatement. IV, The ResDondent Emolover i: directed to initiate a fa ir and transDarenl process for reoularizino the Aooellant Worknr :n wi n srx months from the date of reinst r - me t dul consid e rln o the fact that thev ha erfo rm ed r t ) permanent perennial municiDal duties akin DOSts. In assessinq reoulal j zation, the Emolover shall not rmDose e( rcationa! or , y procedural criteria retroactiv if such to the reo u i rements were never aDpl ied Aooellant Workmen or to simi i rl reqular emolovees in the Dast. -f extent that sanctioned vacancies for sucl duties exist or are reoulred the ResDondent E rolover sh all exDedite all nece ssarv administra l.i re processes to ensure these lonqtime emolo ees are not indefinitelv retain ed on dailv waql1; contrarv to ] I and e uitabl r

19. In view of the above. the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(: ) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Aoex Court in a iudo ment reoorte(l i 2 L7 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148, in S te of PuniaI and others vs Jaqiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and i s sub- pa ras ( 1) (2)(3 ). of the said iudqment o served as tI rder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, wn te adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, tlat temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of t, e regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activitie; ca rried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similat. The full bench t7 SN, J \eP 30719 2021 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. da il wa e a aooointees are not aD ointed aoainst reoular sancttonedoo sts and t etr servtces ere avail'ed continuouslv. with notional breaks. bv the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lono oeriod i. e. for 7O vears, such dail wa oers. ad hoc or contra ctuala ooointees shall be entit,led to minimum of the reoular oav scale without anv allowances on the assumotion that work of rked for oerennial na re is available and havin wo riod of time. an eouitable rioht s such lona f Dersons. fheir claim for created in such cateoorv reoularization, if anv, ma ha ve to be considered seDaratelv in te sof leaallv oermissible scheme. d (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 1O 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 iudoment of the Aoex Court reDorted in 2o10(9) scc 247 b een: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in Dartacular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as u nder:

4. The decision in Sta on 10.4.2o06 reDOrted in 200 CC1 Constitution Bench of this Court held that a of Karnataka v. Umade was rendered In that case. a ppointments made 6/4tS l8 s-\. J \p r0199-202 t without following the due process or the .,les relating to appointment did not confer any right on tht appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regul, rization or re- engagement nor make their service permane-, , and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under ArtiL le 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directiol; for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, ir terrns of the constitLttional scheme; and that the courts mL;t be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly tu I ) the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its't stru menta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitr e the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. l-l is Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual .' a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be t ade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the r€l vant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constit', ion. This Court hov',ever made one exception to the above ,; tsition and the same is extracted below : 5 "53. One asDect need.s to be clarified . There mav be cases w ere irreoular ao ointmen '(not illeoal aDDointm enfs) as exDlained in S.V Na ravana oDa [7967 (7) SCR 7281. R.N. Naniundap oa f7972 (7) (4) SCC sOTt scc 409 and B.N. Naoara an [ 7979 lulv oualified and refer.'red to in Da ra 75 above, ot ls miaht have ctioned vac n been made and the emDlovees have ntinued rs or more bur without the work for ten Interven ion of orders of t.he courts r >_' of tribunals. t The d ue tion of reoular'ization of t.\ z services of such emolovees mav have to be c >nsidered on merits in the lioht of the princioles s ttled b Court in the cases abovereferred to a1 d in the lioht of this iudoment. In that context, _:he Union of I ndia, i nstru mentalities should take steos trI reoularize as a one-time measu re, the services of sr,:h irreqularlv aooointed. who have worked for ten lears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not uqder cover of the courts or of tribuna;: and shou ld orders o u nderta ken to fill those vacant sar.r tioned Dosts that reduire to be filled uD, in :ases where temDora are beinq ailv wao,='s emolovees or the State her ensu Governments re ula r h a l9 SN. J w t0799_2021 now emDloved. The Drocess m ust 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 10 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) fhe 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. I e ,tt Government or instrumentalitv. to take steDs to reoularize the services of those irreoularlv aooointed en ten vears emolovees w o had served for more without the benefit or Drotection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in ithin six months from t. ncetne (rendered on 7O.4.2OOGt.

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Llmadevi, 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 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 services. 20 SN. ] \rf l0?99 20: L

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in L|madevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/ct :ual employees were still pending before Courts. ConseciL ?ntly, severai departments and instru mentalities did not comr tence the one- time regulartzation process. On the other hand, some Governmenl: departments or instru menta lities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several ert tloyees from consideration either on the ground that their case; were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight, In such cit: tmstances, the employees lho were entitled to be considered ;t terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose tt ?ir right to be considered for regularization, merely becaus: the one-time exercise was completed without considering l leir cases, or because the six month period mentioned in par,t 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should co';ider all daily- wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put t 70 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withoLt availing the protection ()f any interim orders of courts or r bunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in teflr; of para 53 of tJmadevi, but did not consider the cases of some :mployees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadev , the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as i, aontinuation of the one-ttme exercise. The one time exercise v;t I be concluded onty when all the employees who are entitled tc be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considere r.

1..! 1 ) t oara 53 of 8. The obi ect behind the said direction Umadevi is two- fold. First is to enSU ret tt those who rs of cont have put in more than ten v uous service w,thOUt the nrotect on of an interim orde 1; of courts or tribuna ls, before the date of decision in lmadevi was ularizati' t in view of rendered, are considered for their lons service. Second Is to ens Ll re that the deoa rtm e n ts / i n stru m e n ta I it i es do not D ?'petuate the of emplo no Dersons cti ilv-waqelad: oeriods and then periodicallv hoc/casual for lon at thev h a ve served for requ la rize them on the oround more than ten vears, therebv defeatino the_:onstitutional or statutorv orovisions rela o to re( uitment and aDpointme nt. The true effect of the directi rn is that all ,vears as on '!t without the _v tribunal, in ification, are , ularization ,_ The fact that he date of decisio f anv interim order of anv court vacant Dosts, Dosses ino the reou,stte ou, entitled to be considered for rsons who have w r .4.2 ,,

2.1 SN, J wp-30799_2021 r has no undertaken such onths of the decision in reaularization within six Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reqard to a limited few, will not disentitle such nsidered for reoularization emolovees, the rioht to be i6 ?a,.rrrc af iha a bove directions in evl 2< r measure. .\,ia-;;.rta

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 tJmadevi, 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 sen/ing 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 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 lJmadevi, 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 ADex Court in Nihal Sinoh 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 22 SN, J ..! p l0iq9 2021 wages were paid by Banks at whose cli;posal their services were made available. It held that t te mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did no render the appellants 'employees' of those Bank:; since the appointment was made by the State anrl disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that thr: creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre: is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Stat:, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but cl ose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It als,l refused to acceDt the defence t at there were no san tio n ed Dosts and so there was iustification for the Ste te to utilise ! servtce of laroe number of oeoole like the a ellant f I es. It held that heaven" and that the State has to creat ioned oosts do rot fall from them bv a conscious ch oice on the basis of some ration a I assessment of need. Referrinq to Umade vi, it held that I,! e aopellants before them were not arbitra rilv chosen, their initial appointm ent was not an 'irreqular' a ooointrn ent as it had been made in accordance with the statut( ) roced u re € t) SN, J \rP -10799 2021 prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, nd the State cannot be heard to sav that they are not entitled to be r ed in the services of the St n basis as, accordinq to it, theIT ADD OI ntments were ourelv temDorarv and not aqainst anvs anctioned oosts created bv the State. It was held that the udoment in Umadevi t cannot become a licence for exDloitation bv the State and its instrulrnentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those Dublic sector Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their obliqation to function i n accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudoment of the Apex Court reoorted in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srtn ivasulu and others v Nellore Municioal Corooration Reo .bv its Commissioner. Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in partreular Daras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reasonina adooted bv the Hiqh Court. The rioht of the apoellants to seek reaularization flows from the G.o. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 The aDDellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseauent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The res'pondent 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 24 S\. J wp 3079q 2021 without regularising the service of the appellant and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the drcumstancest refusing the benel B, mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appeltz the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not, circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying appeal 5y directing that the appellants' servict,: with effect from the date of their completing' continuous service as was laid down by this ( Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh t SCC 480. t of the a bove tts approached rstified. In the he order u nder be regularised their five year ourt in District Ors. 2009 (B)

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar repor ed (2015) 8 SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that ''l're o bjective behind the exception carved out in this case v'as to permit regularization of such appointment, which rre irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmen: , which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure_ securitv of r'r:d the State f h m n w m Government and their instrumentalities for rr ore than ten ln h a m e was workin or 29 years. This decision approves earlaer view G l,res din M.L.Kesari extracted above. L7, fn State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasa(I reoorted in a (en bv the ilar vi ww

1.4 7S Suoreme Court and i was held as f llows: 25 SN, J wp 30799 2021 "47.,,. In view of the cateoorical findind of fact on the relevant contentious issue f'hat the resoondent emolovees have continued in their se ice for more than 70 vears continuouslv therefore, the I'eoal D nc DI,e laid down bv Um v, case State of Karna (2OOO) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at Dara 53 souarelv aoolies to the Dresent cases The Division Bench of the hel' emolovees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with bvt his Court rl htl h

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 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 2023 dated 10.1O.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudoment of the ADex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reDorted in AIR 202O Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticular para Nos.lOO and 1O held as follows: " 100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of utv-bound to exercise such mandamus, but are ower w has faile vernmen ora ubl s wronolv d to exercise or ha xercised q 26 SN, J ..vp 1079() 2021 o nfer red uoon it bv a statutr or a rule or discreti on c a oolicv decision of the Government or I as exercised such discretion mala fide, or o r i rreleva nt co n sid e ra tio n.

101. In all such cases. the High Court must ssue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel ::rformance in an appropriate and Iawful manner of rhe discretion conFerred upon the Government or a public ,r rthority."

20. T e Divi ion B n h n s Judqment dated 10.06.2013 passed in lrV.A.Nos.782 of 2110 and 854 of 2OL2 while u holdin ent date< O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.N(.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on r services of lhe similarly placed persons who app r Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corpor. t various office orders/circulars dated 20.12.791) 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for re casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen t T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice l)' or workman. As can be seen from the factual cases on hand, engaging the respondents For r; continuous period of time on casual basis is nct labour practice attracting the provisions of Sec i ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying I of the Apex court, rightly held that the respond: to regularizatlon as directed in the impugned learned single Judge considered all the aspects c detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our c does not warrant interference in these appeals. " :cord that the rached the law on a Iso issued t,77.O9.L992, ;ularization of rat Section 25- any employer cena rio of the ch a long and ling but unfair )n 25-T of the r the decisions rts are entitled )rders, as the ' the matter in rnsidered view

21. The Division Bench of th is Court in i dated L9.O9.2Ot7 D ! i Judoment .P.No.272 7 ol 2 L7 1 I 27 SN, J rvp 30799 2021 reDorted in 2018(2)ALD oaq 282 at oara 16 an d oara 18 observed as un der: - * 16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Couft is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of lndla. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisrons of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22,4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncrng 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 a bso rption/reg ula 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 22.4.7994, 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 reg u la rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 tl f19 94 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated e 22 4.t994 do not h in Man u o +r hitt e down the widtha ndt s e I ^r., a, Su Dreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in U a Devi's r +h6 errrriccihl er under Act 2 of 1994 and G,O, resoondents t Ms. No.2 2. dated 22.4.1994. to denv reoularization to fh6 It is ta ke sh +haraf s aa. ra/ +!ra f r f n rs w a A mittadlrr 3 h isfie d nt in Devi's ca wninP (suora).

18. For the aforementioned reasons. order, dated 27 -6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside n f.r +ha a el iraat and tlra resDondents to consider reou larisation of the rvices of w r h InsDectors an aoooint them subiect to their satisfvinq n + wn in Par h Uma Devi's case (suora). This process must be comoleted within two months from the date of receiot of a cooy of this order." 28 SN, J \\p 10;99 2021

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Ju qment dated 21.04.202O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2Ol 0 in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 20 19 reported in 2Ol ,(4 ALD D , 379 at paras 45. 48 and oara 50 observed a:; under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have reen working on daily wage sjnce 1990 and have put in alm I ;t (30) yearl of service by now. They have been given minimu I time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till rl te. 48. It is not known whv the lst resDr) rdent has not follow d the decisi n in Uma Devi's c: r: e (su ora), as tn M.L. Kesari's case (su Dra) a rrr under ken a exola i rf dailv wage emolovees who had worked for more tharl ten (10) vears without the intervention of the Courts and _ rib u na sason 10.4 .2OO6 and subiect themtoaD rocess v\ rification as to nt Dosts and posses equisite oualifications for the Dc sts. andif 50, reoularize their services. inst v e art th r m s e r

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowec, the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st resl) ,ndent re.leiting the cases of petitioners for regularization of s :Tvices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary , nd violative of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitutiorl of Ind ia; the resDondents ar directed to reoularizeon r,ne-tim e basis petitio services fro m the date each of he oetitioners comolete 1O years of servrce on dailv vr qes from the initia dates of their aooo ntment. B t, th r shall not be a rrf f led tat ,.tr, m n reli f The saiA lrcise shall be in two (2) weeks from the dat of receiot of coDv of t e order." i ( C

23. 1 t case, the res ondents fa iled to di haro e their d utv i1 examrntno u 29 SN, J \vp_30799_2021 the request of the oetitioner for reoularization of etitio n r is workin as full conti nq ent sweeDer and further to con ider his reouest to treat the temDorarv service of the oetitioner in the last qrade Dost of full time contin qent sweepe r as reqular one r all ur oses b ra nti r a with er increment revised from time to time fro the date of aooointment of the Detitio ner. in accordance to law.

24. This Court oines that oetitioner is entitled for consideration of Det itio ner's case for orant of the relief as oraved for in the Dresent Writ Petition in view of the in various iud o m ents observatio ns of the Apex Court (referred to a nd extracted above) and th e view of the B n h f ourt in the rred t and extra ed above.

25. Takinq into c nsideratton:- 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. 30 S.!. J \\n 10799 l02l c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted abov( ) 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) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 sCC 26s (x) (2or4)7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 202O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this r)ourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1(l and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment daterl 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.Nc.48 of 2008 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this r:ourt dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 oi 2017, (referred to and extracted above), I 3l SN, J wp 30799 2021 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.04.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ol 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ol 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 allowed, the oetitioner directed to out-forth the claim of the oetitioner for reo u la rization of oetitioner 's services a nd also the claim of the Detitioner to treat the temoora rv servtces of the r he !a e ost o tn e reqular one for alI ourooses bv orantino last orade Dav with periodical increments revised from time to time from the Detitioner and all the date of aD conse ouential benefits, dulv enclosino al! the relevant docume nts tn suooort of Detitioner's ca se as out-fo rth in tment of Do tn sent writ etition. with inao ertod o one (o1) we the D from the date of receiot of co DV of the order an d the resDo ndents shall examine and consider the sa eln f w nf rmt wl f natu iu st ebvprovidinq an ooortu ni of oer nal heari no to 32 SN, J wD_30799 2021 l (1) CPa ALD, Par the petitioner, in terms of orders oassed b1 the Suprem e Co urt in Uma Devi's case reDo rted in 2006(r the iudome t oassedinW. P.No.24377 <t 2007 d ed 8.09.2010 reoo rted in 2011 l 234 and as o confirmed in W.A.N 0.782 of 2O1O dated 1O 06.201 3, and also as per Divisi on Bench Judqme nt of th i; Court dated 19.09.2 OL7 D a ssed in W.P.No.2721 7of20 ,l 7 reported in 2018 (2)ALD paqe 242 and also the D i rision Bench Jud ment of th is Court dated 21.O4.2020 sed in I.A.No s.l of 2O20 in 1 of 2O19 i n W.P.No .it lO57 of 2019 re Dorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Daoe 79 which ha finali attain W, with in a Deriodoff our (04) weeks rom the dat e 1 l of receiot of a coov of this order. dul ta ki no into co n siderati on the observ tions nd the law laid down bv in the va rious iudq ments ( rr erred to an d in oa rticular, oara 1o.53 of the in the case of State of extr cted ab e), an the A x Court iudo ment of ex Co AD I r runicate the deci saon to the Detitioner. However, therer shall be no orde rasto costs. d n JJ S.'. J Np 10799 2021 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. r r ,TRUE COPY// SD/-A{MEDABDruhLEt\'r[HiH,l G SECTION OFFICER onef air."ey,.(rF1:$3.t5'::#5:ii"Ti:'j:$EpALLTNANDA To, n s a n a P a n ch a v a th rai j?1,", :,1 ff l? ' I:? 5I[:Ri'-t"ff l;':# r']?"', ';:?5I',fi 33i3;"g-ro;JJl".?[3:",:l]:+T:3i5;5'33iist ) And c h ai rm a n o r s e I e ctio n co m m ittee' t l,:", r'*::t-:lJ*lT S, $l:1"'"' 4. The Chief Executive Officer' The Zilla Praia Parishad' Nalgonda District 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer' Madugulapalli Mandal' Nalgonda j[*',"'lxtl]l'1'.0 District. 6, 11 L'R. CoPies' Buildings, HYderabao 7 The Under Secretary' Union of tndia' t\Iinistry of Law' Justice and Company . l['':]::,1.lln'.",."n".a Advocates Association Library, High court " 9. One CC to Sri CH ganesh Advocate [OPUCI ,rlu?f"??:1""T,1?l:fl l"rlxy3tff is$'fl ,,, Prannins' "::: -'* t'the state or +HBfr:l:ll"*ruU*t,and 12. one CC M Ram Gopal nlo' Sc for ZPPS and MPPS and GPSSIoPUCI 13.Two CD CoPies Deveropment'Hishcourtf TJ BS f+ HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:31 10712025 ORDER WP.No.30799 of 2021 F o f s 7,i O iit 2025 7 * /-_jal ,', ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (r 1a V >)