The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approaclre h eCo eekinq Draver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not converting contingent services of the petitioner as regular one in the post of Librarian Gr. III for continuously working as Librarian on compassionate grounds fron 26.07.2001 even after 22 long years by not extending time scale monetary benefits with periodical increments revised from time to time with arrears as per G.O.Ms.No. 687, dt:03.10'1977 to till date is highly unjust, unfair and totally illegal for violating Article 14, 16, 21., 39,(d), 43 and 300(A) of Constitution of India by not implementing Section 13&15 of Minimum Wages Act 1948 and Equal Remuneration Act 1976 by subjecting the petitloner for exploitative enslavement due to his helpless conditions of poverty, poor social economical and political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents in spite of abolition of Bonded Labour as per Act 1976 in paying pittance wages of Rs. 1623/- pm till date instead of paying living legitimate wages as per Acts, Laws, Rules Yt'!:-.',rlflfi',", 4 SN-] \\p 11106 2022 - and prays to direct the respcndents hereir '() treat the temporary appointment of petitioner on co npassionate grounds as Librarian by granting time sc,r 3 monetary benefits of Librarian GT.III with periodic a increment revised from time to time from the date of rllpointment of the petitioner to till date by applying pri r:tple laid by Hon'ble Apex Court to grant 1007o com l:nsation on arrears of pay as per Judgment in C.A. No 3416-3445 of 2010 dt: 19.02.2019 in the case of Uniorr of India Vs. Avatar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) by tre. I nq reqular one as per principle laid by Apex Court irr the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of UP and Batch car;::; (2019 10 SCC 516) by applying principle in the ca';'of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Anr. in Ci\'l Appeal No. 7254 of 2018 dated 23.03.2018 to r3ckon the contingent services of petitioner in the ter porary post of Librarian for computation of qualifyinc service to sanction pension and Gratuity by apply r g1 aforesaid principles laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court r nder Article 141 oF our Constitution by this Hon'ble Cou- in this case to do justice to the petitioner and pass :,r r;h order or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem flt I td proper in the interest of j ustice... " lf of th I ea rned counsel aD Dearanq on 3 oetiti oner olaci o reliance on the av rmenli made in the affi vit filed in suDport of the presen I to the s rvtce! pertatininq in p oetitioner with the resoond ents herein fo r more than a decade contends th t the oetitioner is er titled relief a oraved for tn the Drese nt writ petit irn. rendere dbv articular, etitio r PERUSED THE RECORD:- { {ffi,:ffii.'ffii; :. Zlil .;r-.i i: 5 SN.J \\,p 31306 2022 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 4, Learned counsel aDp rnq on behalf of the petition er submits that the subiect issue in the Dresent case rs sq uarelv covered bv eorder of this Cou rt- dated

08.09.2010 Dassed in W.P .No .24377 of 20 O7 reoorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O10, dated 1 .06.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 passed in W, P.No.272t7 ot 2O17 reDorted in 2O 18 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order dated 21.O4.2O2O ass o ed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4) ALD Paqe 379.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Servi ces-I aopearinq on behalf of the resDondents submits that the qrievance of the oetitioner as out-forth in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the res Do ndents herein as on date and therefore. the oetitioner can not comolain inaction on the part of resoondents herein in con side ri nq the qraevance oL the Detitioner and hence, the etitioner in the present Wit relief as praved for bv th oetition cannot be qranted and no Mandam s can be issued aqai nst the resooncle nts hereunder as souoht for and the oetitioner mav be di rected to out-forth the iti ner's ion b wa Peti 6 !-I SN.J rP -'r 1106 2012 n u -f rth in h( present Writ a re reser ati nt n en s f senta ton the r s on et E_ f o I t;l er hes in accordance to law, within a reasonable o5 1iod. 6 n c un el r o u no di th s d sub As sta tG ver m ntP ad behalf oft he resDo den ts. r b h lf of the Deti ron m erv the I r s-I -appcarurs_s! 7,7 e ex Co ud m tr ed in (2 o20) 1 cc L in Pr m n V a of Uttar Prades h and a ar 3 el as d r

"36. There are some of the employees who h; r regularized in spite of having rendered the ser,, 40 or more years whereas they have been sup< As they have worked in the work_charged ei: not against any particular project, their servr(( have been regularized under [he Government and even as per the decision of this Courr- i Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court decision has laid down thaL in case services rendered for more than ten years without the : Court's order. as one-time measure, the j regularized of such employees. In the facts r,. tnose employees who have worked for ten ye.t should have been regularized. It would not b r regulate them for consideration of regularizatrc r have been regularized, we direct that their j € not been ces for 30- rannuated. blishment, s ought to rstructions r State of l the said rave been rrrer of the :rvices be the ca se, s or more lr ro per to as oth ers rr-vices be , ,*i. !.., - 7 SN.J ru.p 34J06 2022 treated as a regular one. However it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claimi ng any dues of difference rn wages had theY been contin ued in service regularly before attain ing the age oF super a nnuation. They shall be entitled to i-eceive the pension as if they have retired r blishm nt h e d e r r d e or -ch r VI f e U e r n n d h x our int e case D P D Litera te Dail v Waqe Em DI vees Assoc iat Ka na in1 k re ort ccP 2 Vs. State la d r n that the State hou ld not keeDA DE rson tn tem ora rv or adhocs rv! e for lonqD riod and have to treat su ch ers n sre lar on P a o 3o th u en of th A x in th s te of a 1 .o4.20 6 e her un r:- d oth rsV U ad vt a 2 06) 4 scc 1is extract s 9 ',5 o e wh e e ts s ctn ds cR 12 d or d b en mad e r fer ndthee 9 an s n J x la n e cla ifa e 1n s. .N. N n , There s n B N.N ara ra1 n 1 7 b ve o d o ts vac n plovee o mor h ve con tin u o a e e a a 97 c ua fi o7 v t 8 Sl\..l $p lll0r,2012 .r.-r ;_ n TI r h n n t l ! .! h m rf trab nal o 'turcrltiln gpur!-lnlhc qhto f this I f Indi ( r Jm nta litie ne-time ! a aoPointed, I Ore ind ulv rrders of the 1 -ensure that o fill ) lE-l!!!cd--up. v here temDorarY em olovees ol dailv waqers ln ca afeb inq now emolo ed. The orocess I ustbe set in motio n within six months from this d t( r la tz h irre ul w e t s t r r f r I

10. Th re o d u m nt o te 2 .L2 2024 j d 24 La UI s 1 9 J C u Anita v Union f o and the reley,ant q raoh Nos.1 2, L3 4,26.27 and 2 28 . rre xtr cte Dara hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "par *11t..t,i the apfellants performed essentiil tasks on a dailY and con: ;.t extensive Periods' -ranging ;;;i; over a decade to nearlY two-- decaoe:; attgrga-ant was not sporadic or ten't -nuir.a, instead, it was recurrent' r'l ir.in to the responsibilit-ies--tv issociated with sanctioned posts' Mc't "nJ the resPondents did not engage anY for these tasks du-rirt ;;;t";;:i appellants tenure, -underscoringl indispensaOle nature of their worx' t-time Their )ora ry rgular, pically eover, I the 9 SN.J $P Il]06 2022 The cla bvt he resoondents that 13. these were not reo u ar Dost s lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aDDellants was Derennta and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recu rfl n g nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these Same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example From the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiqhliqhts lhe iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq suc ml workers receive fair treatment. at ns h IO s\.1 rrp 34306 2022 - 5 I and had

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi t: r.rpra ) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor e r tries tional and ensure appointments adhered to constit t principles, it is regrettable that its princip t s; are often misinterpreted or misapplied to . This legitimate claims of long serving employee : judgment aimed to distinguish between 'i l,:ga l" " irregu lar" r ents. appoint r s in It ca teoorica llv held that em olover irreq ular aooointments, who were enoa ( -ed-rtr sa nctioned Do contin u ouslvf or more than ten vea rs be considered for requ la rization as ! _one- :nt of time measure. However, the laudable ir t the judgment is being subverted when inst I u tio ns t the rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately rejt: claims of employees, even in cases whet r the ir appointments are not illegal, but merel adherence to procedural formalities. Gove r r Devi departments often cite the judgment in Urr rt to (supra) to argue that no vested ri- regularization exists for temporary em;'l )yees, judgment's I overlooking the xplicit .ion is acknowledgment of cases where regularlz: itorts appropriate. This selective aoolication cL! the iud oment's sDirit a nd purpo tivelv ! weaDonr zinq it aqainst emDlovees wh g _have ervrces _ - over rendered decades, 27. In light of these considerations, opinion, it is imPerative for gov(l departments to lead by example in provit i and sta ble employment. Engaging worke - temporary basis for extended periods, e:'1 when their roles are integral to the organ; functioning, not only contravenes interr Iabour standards but also exposes the orgar to legal challenges and undermines ent morate. By ensuring fair emPlr: practices, government institutiont; reduce the burden of unnecessary Iiti< rll OUf r ment rg fair on a ecially a tio n's rtional i:.ation rloyee /ment atio n, indisoensable s re.wxsi {i ---- SN..I \p 34i06 2022 promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with internationat standards and sets- a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributang to the overalt 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 27 .10.20 LB are quashed ; orders dated r wev I d ts sh I not ai. The aoo lla nts shall be taken ba k on dutv forthwith and their forthwi h. e be efits/ back waqes for the oeri od the have not work ed for but would be entitled to conti nuitv of servtces for the said period and he same w uld t- retiral benefits.l coun ed for

11. Th Judo ment oft he Apex Court dated 31 .o1.2025 reDortecl an 2025 I NSC 144 in "S HRIPAL AND ANOT HER v. NA GA R NIGAM, GHA ZIABAO", in oarti ular, t e releva nt Dara N os .15 to 19 are extractedhe reu nder: "15. It is o ifest th t A lla nt orkm n over several m time n re th nad '*.,Tr=]ry,lffiilffis'J-w. :11::. 2 SN.J r\p 3{l(16 2022 ) r r a well-establisht :t- Even if certa in muster rolls were not orc'r luced in full the Emolover's failure to furnish sur h records- desoite directions to do so-all ows an adverse inferen ce labour i u risorud ence. Indian labour I w stron r lv disfavors er etual dail -w ual enr rqements in circumstances wh re the work is ot rmanent in nature. Morallv and leqallv, workers who fulfil reouirements vea t _ after vear onqoino municiDal cannot be dismis ed summarilv as lispensable, oarticularlv in the absence of a oenuir ! I contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be i ppropriate to recall the broader critique oF indefinitt: "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of tempora - contracts, as exemplified in this ce : broader systemic issue that adva workers' rights and job security. Ir sector, the rise of the gig economy I increase in precarious employment i often characterized by lack of benefitr; and fair treatment. Such practices criticized for exploiting workers anrl labour standards. Government institut ( with upholding the principles of fairnes bear an even greater responsibility t exploitative employment practices. sector entities engage in misuse contracts, it not only mirrors the detr i observed in the gig economy but concerning precedent that can erode p- governmental operations. employment e, reflects a -:;ely affects the private as led to an rrangements, job secu rity, have been undermining ns, entrusted s and j ustice, r avoid such When public )l'temporary rrental trends ,llso sets a :lic trust in IJ S\.J !\p-i.li06 2012 r reoular

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, oFten face multifaceted forms of exoloitation. 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 owecj to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o Misuse of Te mDora rv" Labels: Emolovees enqaoed for wo k that is essential, recurrinq, r and inteoral to the fun ioninq of an instatutaon are often la bel! ed as "temDorarv" or "contractu a 1. " eve n when their roles mirror those of emplovees. Such deorives workers of the m i scla ssificatio n dionitv. secu itv. and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to, despite performinq 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 sig n ifica nt, . 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 t4 SN.J \p i1106 2022 a deliberate effort to bypass the ob1 r ation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefi s: Temporary employees are often denied fundar^:ntal benefits such as pension, provident fund, he; ll:h insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security ;Jbjects them and their families to undue hardshitr especially in cases of illness, retirement. 0 unforeseen circumstances." 16, The High Court did acknowledge ,l t: Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. C)onsequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wag ( s with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrett lbly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant \ /orkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still Lrn, ortain status. While the High Court recognized the impor tance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizati() r it failed to afford them continuity of service or meanin!t1 ul back wages commensurate with the degree of statr tlry violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, 1l o Employer's discontinuation oF the Appellant Worknr:r stands in violation of the most basic labour law princil'les. Once it is established that their services were teror lated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the J.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev wer enqa ed tn essential Derennial duti s these work ! rs_ta_[_Iet _be releoated to nerrtetual u ncertaintv. W 'I rile concerns como iance with of munici nal bud flaf 15 SN.J \vp 1.1i06 2022 ne ate recru itment rules merltco n sideration such co ncerns do not absolve the m Itlover of statutorv oblioations Indeed b u rea ucratic limitati on s cannot trumo the leqitim ate riqhts of workmen w l'ro have se ed continuous lv in de facto reqular rol es for a n extended period. lement bI e ed order of the Hiq h Court, to the 18. The tmp extent thev confine he Aooella nt Workmen to future conti n uitv or dailv-waoe enqaq ent without meanrnqful back wa oes, is herebv set aside with the followinq directions: t e m 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) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of abse nce (from the date of termana tion until actual rei nstatement) shall be counted for coirtinuitv of service and all co nseo uentia I benefits, such as s nioritv and motions, if anv. eliqibilitv for 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 I6 SN.J wp 14106 2022 actual reinstatement. The Respondenl :mployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.. - s from the IV. The Res Dondent Emolover is directedto initiate a fair and transoarent process for reo u la rizi no the Aopellant Workn1in within six ln rr:ement, dulv considerino the fact that thev h; l! :e__pe-ffelllted ) Derma nent Derennial municipal duties akin t posts. In assessinq requlari zation EmD lover shall not imoose erl .rcational or plocedural criteria retroactiv(] v if such to the reoutrem ents were never aDt, ied ADDellant Workmen or to simi 'Iy--si!ue!cd reoular emolovees in the oast. I the extent that sanctioned vacancies for suc _ d uties exist or are required, the Respondent I nplover shall exDedite all necessarv administra ve Drocesses to ensure these lonqtime emplo''ees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waqc s contrarv to statutorv and equitable norms. I ! T t

19. In view of the above, the appeal(:; filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(;) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2, The Aoex c ou rt ln a tu oment reDort€,( d in (2O17) 1 Court Cases 14 inS teofP a b and others vs Jaoiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and rts sub-paras (1)(2)(3). ot the said iudome nt observed as r rnder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, r,ntlle adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum o' -lte regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activit)e ; carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were simila . The full bench - l7 S\.J r\p ili06 2022 however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in. eith.er of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the mtnimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employeis. The exceptions recorded by the futt 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. t av, reaks- But intees ate not aDDoin ted aoa inst th notional AD sanctioned posfs and con tinuous lv Government or its instru lono oeriod i.e. for 7 hoc or contr,'actuala DOrn mtntmum of allowances on the assum tion that wo Deren n,al nature is avai.lable and ha vinq work such lono oe created in such cateoorv of rsons. Th eir cla t reqularization if an mav h vetob e consi seoaratelv in terms of leqallv Dermissible sch v the ta te t for a suffi. veats, such dai,lv waoe shall be entitledto ular oav scale ivithout anv of ti e, an eouitable rioht is d e. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two monihs of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daity wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sha be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,,

13. The iudo ment of t eApex Court rEDorted in 2010(9) scc 247 between: State of Karna taka and others v M.L.Kesari and other .INDA rti s4 u nder:

4. The deciston in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered n 10.4.2 2 06 Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made re orted i at cas CC1 In l8 SN,J wp 34 !06 2022 without following the due process or the I appointment did not confer any right on th( courts cannot direct their absorption, regu. engagement nor make their service permane, Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art < Constitution should not ordinarily issue directiotl regularization, or permanent continuance unles; had been done in a regular manner, trl constitutional scheme; and that the courts m I ensuring that they do not interfere unduly vy,t arrangement of its affairs by the State or its r nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita, of the constitutional and statutory mandates. l l held that a temporary, contractual, casual : employee does not have a legal right to be,r unless he had been appointed in terms of the re.l, adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constit) however made one exception to the above p same is extracted below : l,?s relattng to appointees and .'zation or re- , and the High 'e 226 of the for absorption, the recruitment ,lerms of the ;r be careful in t the economic stru menta lities, e the bypassing i:; Court fu rther 'a daily-wage ade permanent t,ant rules or in 'ion. This Court t:;ition and the 7 sc R.N. Nan un "53. One asDect needs to be clarified .-Theteaay-be cases where irreoular ao ointm ent; (not illeqal aDDointm ents ) as exolained in S.V .- Xarayata.ppa t pa_Il_ez2_(7) SCC 4O9l and B.N, Naqaraian [ 7975 ,-(4) SCC sOTl d to in Dara 75 above, ot and refe '-- daly-s@!!t!e!! Dersons in dulv sa ctioned vacant Da : ts_Jn!S_h! hA.ve been made and the emolovees hav ? :continued to work for ten vears or ore bui _without the intervention of orders of the courts i- of tribunals. ularization of tl e services of The auestion of such emolovees mev have to be < onsidered on merits in the oh of the orincioles : e-tt!ed--by-!hE Court in the cases abovereferred to zr r f the Union of - - and their instrumentalities should take steps ta rcgUlafEE__AS a one-tim measure. the ices of s t <:h irresularlv aooointed. who have worked for ten _,ears or more in dul but not L'1'det--eever-_at orders of the cou,'t< or of tribuna!:- and hou ld further ensure t,hat reoular rec, t itments are undertaken to fill tlt/]se vacant satt:_tJoled_j.eglt1 ed uo, in cases wh ere that reouire to ( rs are beino r ail at con d me In t, t9 Sr"".J rvp 34306-2022 o moti, te...., st be within stx mon q from this '5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception ta the general principles against 'regularization, enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are futfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duiy 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 ccntinued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee shoutd not be iltegal, 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 quatifications, the appointments will be considered to be i egat. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctianed posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon the con erned Gove ment or instru me talitv. to take ste recrular'ize the services of those irreqularlv aDDointed emolo vees who had served for more than ten without the benefit or orotection of an interim o rders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time m sure. Umadevi, direc d that such one-tim e measure must be set in motion within six months mthed ate of its decision 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, sach department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a tist of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc emptoyees 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. don 7 o6 20 SN..I rvp i,1306 2022

7. At the end of six months from the datt: Umadevi, cases of several da ily-wage/ad - hoc/ cz were still pending before Courts. Consec,r departments and instru menta lities did not con t time regularization process. On the oth( t Government departments or instru mentalitie: one-time exercise excluding several e;r consideratian either on the ground that their ca:.( in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such ctrr employees who were entitled to be considerecl i 53 of the decision in umadevi, will not lose -l considered for regularization, merely because exercise was completed without considering because the six month period mentioned in par; has expired. The one-time exercise should cr. r wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put i, continuous service as on 10.4.2006 witho t protection of any interim orders of courts or \ employer had held the one-time exercise in ter,j Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sontt: were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of umadt,, concerned should consider their cases also, as ,t the one-time exercise. The one time exercise t/ only when all the employees who are entitled r in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considert:, of decision in ;'Jal employees ently, several lence the one- hand, some undertook the oloyees from s were pending Jmstances, the t terms of Para e'ir right to be the one-time tleir cases, or :;3 of Umadevi sider all daily- 10 years of ' availing the iounals. If any s of para 53 of :mployees who i, the employer continuation of tl be concluded ,be considered t- !. I ! n service. Secondisto

8. The ob ect behind the said direction ara 53 of two- fold. First is to ensure t t those who Umadevi 1 rs of cont Lq.9.gE__99!.y!9e_ more than ten have Dut e Drotection of an without th terim orde ourts or tribun als before the da te of decision in Umadevi was rendered. are considered for reqularizatic n in view of their lon deDartments / i nstrum entalities do not De rDetua te the rilv-wa se/ad - oeriodica llv hoc /casual reoularize them on t e oround that thev h ve served r more than ten vears. therebv defeatinq the'-._enstb.tt!ond or statutorv orovisions relatinq to re<:t uitment and c:t rn is t.hat all a e Dersons who have worked for more than t as on 91 70.4.2006 the date of dec ston in Umadet 1L hout th protection of anv interim otder of any coufl' )r unal. I vacant Dosts, Dosse ind the reouisite ou a Ufication. are entitled to be considered or reoularization The fact that ens( re that m lo rto tls e t, the n of t. 2t SN.J \\p_)4306 2022 the emplover ha Sno t unde n such exercise of ix mont softh e decisio nIn reou arization wtth n Umadevlo r that such exercise was undertaken onlv in few. will not emolo vees, the riqht to be considered for reqularization IN terms of the abo directions in U adevi asaone -time measure. limit,etl

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 otf regularization within six months of the decision in LJmadevi or thereafter.

70. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a geierat one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daity wage/casual/ad- hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and-if so whether such employees (inctuding the respondents) futfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they futfitt them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three manths. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not futfitt the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regutarised. 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 appeat is disposed of accordingly. L4. In the iudomen t of the ADex Cou in Nihal Sinoh and others v. State of P uniab re orted in 2013) 1 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose 22 wages were paid by Banks at whose di services were made availabte, It held that 1:l that wages were paid by the Bank did nol appellants 'employees' of those Banks appointment was made by the State anrl control vested with the State. ft held that thr: cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre exclusively within the authority of the Sta.:, SN,J tp _i1306 2012 ;posal their te mere fact render the since the d iscipl ina ry :reation of a is a matter :, but if the ose to make State did not choose to create a cadre but ch appointments of persons creating contractua I relationship, its action is arbitrary. It als-c _ refused to acceDt the defence that there were no san ; joned oosts and so there was iustification for the Sta.e to utilise services of Iarqe number of oeo Dle like the a roe llants for decades. It held that lsanctioned p ts do r rot fall from heaven" and that the State has to creato them bva conscious choice on the basis o f me ration;r asses of need. Referrinq to Umad evi it held that t er appella nts h before them were not arhitra ritvc their initial r' aooointnr, : tasith d been made in accordance w th he statuto g y orocedure t ADDointment was not an trred u osen, h -a-, Dre scribed u nder thePolice Act. 1861 SN.J \vp iJl06 2022 thes te n t s h are n en ifl to e bsor ed nt the servi of the Stat erman nt a c h tr ointm nts wer UT m sts crea ain tan sa nction ed d ot bv the State. I wa h ld that th en tn ma evt ca n not becomeali cencefor ex loitationbv the State and its instrum entalities and neither the Government of un bn rth e d bri se rB ks srs nt with their obli nc tin ation to f nc ntn ra lc cco dan ewi hth Co stit tion.

15. The iudqmentof the Apex Court rEDorted in 2015 nlin s een B.Sr nrva L79 d ers v M lcl al N I lore District, r ora ion Re ndhra Prades h and others. rn Darticu la r b sC ml Dara s 7 and 8 reads as und er: (7) h U h t n o b 24 SN.J rvP:14i06 2022 without regularising the service of the appellan : and continued to extract work from the appellants. B. In the circumstances, refusing the ben€t mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appella the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not 1 circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyinq appeal by directing that the appellants' service: 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 above 1ts approached tstified. In the he order under be regularised their five year aurt in District Ors. 2009 (B)

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar repor:ed (201.5L8 SCC 26s, the Su D reme cour held that 'I re objective t behind the exception carved out in this case ! ras to permit regularization of such appointment, which rre irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointment;,. which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensurrr security of emplovment of those persons who had ser! ed the State Government and thei r instru mentalities for rr ore than ten vears". In that case, emplovee was workinc for 29 years. This decision aDproves earlier view I p ress din )( L M.L.Kesari extracted aIove.

17. In State of Ja rkhand v Kamal Prasa C reoorted in (20L4) 7 SCC 223, similar view was t kq--lylhc Su oreme Court and it wa s follows held as 75 SN.J Np 14106 1022 In I e e l-2 ,n "47 relevant contentiouS ,.s-sue that the resoonde t emolo vees ave con erefore. the lesaI principle laid down bv this Court in Umad,evi case (,Sfafe of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006 )4SCC 7:2OO cc (L&s) 73) at oara 53 sd uarelv 6 aDD t. es to the Dresent C DiVts NB ch of the ses, H h Court has the resDon dent emol'ovees are entitl.ed for the relief, the same cannot be I t I Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated C,6.L2.2O22 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 ot 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and atso confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The iudqment of th Aoex Court in Hari Krish na nd oth rs re in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in D a rticular ar htr rust v os.10 d1 lt w "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 mandamus, but are dutv-bou nd to ex ow r w r v has failed eorhasw ron lv exercised heG to exercl ercrse c authori m n e 26 SN.J \vp 3,1306 2022 d iscretion conferred uoon it bv a statut( -gr-a-ru!c,-qr no h G v rnment or a olic deci such discretion mala fide, or o irre leva nt consider as-cx t j s n

101. In all such cases, the High Court must ssue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel c:rformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of l^e discretion conferred upon the Government or a public .a tthority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in i :s Judqment dated 1O.O6.2013 Dassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2010 and 854 of 2OL2 while uo holdinq the Judqment daterr 08.09.2010 oassed in W.P.No.243 77 of 2OO7 and C.C.l\rr.48 of 2OOB observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on services of the similarly placed persons who apl> Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corpor,r various office ord ers/circu la rs dated 20.12.19E 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 folr casuai/contract employees, It is also to be seen ' T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice : or workman. As can be seen from the factua cases on hand, engaging the respondents for s continuous period of time on casual basis is n,> labour practice attracting the provisions of Se(.t ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying r of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responcr to regularization as directed in the impugnecl learned single Judge considered all the aspects detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our does not warrant interference in these appeals.' €rcord that the cached the law ion a lso issued ), rt.09.t992, glu la rization of hat Section 25- r any employer ;:enario of the rch a long and l-ring but unfair on 25-T of the r the decisions rts are entrtled orders, as the rf the matter in onsidered view

21. The Division Bench of this Court in j _SIUdSrrnC11! dated 19 .o9.20L7 oassed in W,P.No,27rl .7 of 2017 27 SN,J \rp 14106 2022 r orted in 2O1 A D a 2 2 t a1 and ara 18 nde r: - '16, It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court ts binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in lJma Devi,s case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of lgg4 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.7994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons/ who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered foi one_time a bsorptio n/reg ula rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directioni 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.t994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not mad e any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la riza tion/a bsorotion exist_ T h inP tin maD vi's case (su ra ). It is, therefo re, not Dermrssib le for the r Ms. No.21 2. dated 22.4.1994 to denv requlariz ation to a aid wn tn Devi's case (suo a). 18. For the aforementioned reasons , order, dated 27 .6.201,7 in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set asid e and the writ oetition is allow edw ith the direc ron to the serv eso 4 rem c ud m nt in .4.1 d n Man L994 nd G. d r ct2 4L Ba .5 of th ke h n No. .o. Int A a o 3 2 1 n IO s th criteria laid dow Um n o this order." e ts tn t e e Para No.53 of the iud qment tn te f e c w 28 SN.] Np 3410() 2022

22. The Division Bench oft his C urt in it; ud oment d ted 1.o .2020 ass and W.P.No .2305 7 of 2O19 repo rtedi n 2O20 in I.A.Nos.1 f2 2C n1 of 2O 19 I zt)ALD Daqe 37 at ras 4 48 nd ra o a J lder:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have L t e.n working on daity wage since 1990 and have put in almost rl30) years of i".rji." uv now. They have been given minimum 1 rne-scale from ine year'ZOO0. They have been continuously r'crking without any 6ourt orders in their favour from 1990 till d;t:' 44, It is not known whv the st res oor exDlained i n M.L. Ke one-ti mee xerctse ofo DATIN emotov lent has not ;r (s u ora ). as case (s uora) an( L c-E-dslakcl-a dail waqe ees who had worked for more than .! qn (10) vears 'i bu nals as on ut the interve ntion of the courts nd ificat nas t--!ss!s--4.!rd and if so the Iist ( s D e ! f ): T 1 reqularize their services. 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated ZO.g.ZOl'g passed by the 1st res;rr ndent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of; trvices on one- rrd vlolative of time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary i of India; the Articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitutiorl !!!qtime- !aE!s ularize on res ondents are di rect h€-.pctllDnss a h e roes from the ond ailv v com lete 1O vears of servt I initial dates ofth etr aoD orn tment. But, th v's all no ! le rcise shall be ,- of receiot of n rs' h :r hin tw copy of the order."

23. Tha Cou res ond e n s fail e fod ha roe their dutv in examininq s€ nt case 29 S N..i \\o 31306 2022 the reoues of theDe t t oner for reoul a rization of s Detiti oner's servaces, whoi workinq as Dart Librarian and further to consider his request to treat the temDorarv serv ice of the oetitioner in the last q rade oost of Dart time Librarian as reoular one for all ourooses bv ora ntinq last rade oav with oeri dical increment revised from time to time fro the dat of aoooi ntment of the oetitioner, rn accorda nce to law.

24. This Court oDrnes that Detitioner is entitled for con si deration ofoetitioner's case for qrant of the relief as Drav ed for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the o bservations of the A ex Cou tn vaflous iudo ents f erred racted a VE n the v wofth Div ision Bench of thi s Court in the Judo ments referred to bove.

25. Takinq into con si derat n:- 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 30 SN,J rvp_l'1106_2022 Assistant Government pleader for Services-I ;r rpearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted abovcr and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) Scc Page 396 (iia) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2O13) 14scC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC t79t (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 Scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scC 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this (l )urt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7B2 of 2O1O rnd 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.tg of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), J SN.J \\ p_:1,{106 2022 e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2017 passed in W.p.No.2721-7 of 2OL7 (refetred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ol 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ol 2OLg (referred to and extracted above). g) In the tight of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition ts allowed.t heD etiti ner as -fo t h h u eti ton n a rm esLan sJer requla DEtitio of the petitioner to reat the tempora services of the Detiti o er in the last qra eDOst ofL i bra ria n as req ular one for all pur DO ntinq last q radeoa v with Der todical rncrementsr evised from time tot ame from the date of apoointment of the Detition er by qra con se uentia I benefits, dulv enclosinq all do um tsi s the releva nt the presentw at Detition lr m r a r cea itio er a as ut- o ithin a Den odofon O1) week of co of th rd r d e SN.I \r'p.rd306_2022 re s Donden ts sha il examtne and co sider the same in accordance to law, in conformitv with prin,; ples of natural IUstice bv orovidino an oooortun tv of oer!i !.nAl trga-r1ngle the oetitio ner, rn terms of orders oa ssed 2 g the Supreme ( Cou the i udome nt in Uma Devi's case reoorted in 2OO6 1) SCC Paqe 1, assed in W.P.No.24377 r'f 2OO7 dated o8.09.20 1O reoorted in 2O1 1 (1) ALD, P;r re 234 and as confirmed in W.A. No.782 of 2O1O dated l. 1.06.2O1 3, and also asper Division Bench Judqme ntoft tis Cou 19.09 .2OL7 oassed in W.P .No.272L7 of 2t) 7re orte 20L8(2)ALD paqe 2Az and also the Ii v .Iudo ent of this Court dated 2L.O4.2C2 I.A.No .1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O1 9 in W.P.No . 23057 reoorted in 2O2O (4)ALD paqe 379 wh ttained finalitv, within a oeriod of four (O4) week! _fleg_thejlatg th rs ord er, drr v takinq into co nstderation t e observa tions and the ]a 1r_ laid down bv th ADex C ou rt tn th varto us iudoments 1.1 eferred to and rec ipt of a coov of assed in f 2019 Bench extractedab ove ) and tn rt rf icu la r a Dar a No.53 of the u men of eA ex u in the e tate of Kar,na kav me DevI nd du co r LEs.lllcatc_lhe JJ SN.J wp 34306 2022 d ecision e petitione r. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/I SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGIS-TRAR /c,- sEcTtoN 6rFrcen One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTTCE SUREPALL| NANDA (For Her Lordship,s Kind perusal) To, 1

3. 4

6. 7. B. 9. 10 11 '1 1 L.R. Copies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad Th_e Principal Secretary to Education Department Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad. The Principal Secretary to Govt Finance and pranning Department secretariat , T.S.,Hyderabad. The Director of Public Libraries, Govt of Telangana Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. - The Secretary, Ch_airman Ziila Grandhataya Sjmstna, Sulypiit, 6istriii . Telangana State. Suryapet, One CC to SRl. CH GANESH, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GP FOR SERVTCES I ,High bourt f<jr the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY, SC [OPUC] Two CD Copies BM BSR <5 HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 ORDER WP.No.34306 of 2022 (\ o u HT,t E s :() rfit! ? ?tli C \ a ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI.IOUT COSTS @ tol"ill

1., l, l l- -/ 4 * 2 %