K. Kavitha v. 1. The State of Telangana

sweepers of the deceased father-in-law of the petitioner in GO Ms. No. 448 dated 2510612016 and direct the respondent to apply same analogy in the case of the petitioner with all consequential monetary and service benefits with arrears of pay with 100 percentage compensation to the widow by applying principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of lndia Vs Avtar Chand 2019 (3) ALD SC 32 and also award the cost ofthe case. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner by converting her temporary appointment as contingent sweeper in the year 2006 by ordering deemed regularization of the services of the deceased father-in-law of the petitioner in the last grade post as per GO Ms. No. 118 dated 18-08-1 999 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 3: AGP FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondents No.4 & 5: SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following: ORDER 4 SN, J HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.31162 0F 2021 ORDER: Heard Sri CH,Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standang counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. The oetition r aooroached the Court ekinq oraver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents to preparing the proposals in the year 2014 as per GO.Ms.No.118, dated 18.08.1999 after two decades of death of contingent sweepers who worked in respondent Zilla Praja Parishad to order deemed regularization of such deceased employees' services to provide compassionate appointment to the kith and kin in time under the Scheme of social security, by shirking statutory responsibility and accountability by the respondent Chief Executive Officer to cause harm, and loss to the kith and kin of the deceased employees for decades together without any relief as unconstitutional unjust unfair and violation of Art. \4, L6, 21, 39(d), 43 and 300(4) of our constitution to provide living source of income and prays to direct the 1"t respondents herein to order the deemed regularization of full time contingent services w.e.f 19.01.1979 to till his death on 14.09.2006 of the r- SN, J 5 deceased father-in-law of the petitioner as per GO. Ms. 118, dated 18.08.1999 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the last grade post from the date of temporary appointment from the year 2006 with all consequential monetary benefits in the regular last grade post including arrears of pay keeping in view of compassionate appointment provided in last grade post by 4th respondent to the kith and kin of the junior colleagues of deceased contingent sweepers of the deceased father-in-law of the petitioner in GO.Ms.No. 448, dated 25.06.20t6 and direct the respondent to apply same analogy in the case of the petitioner with all consequential monetary and service benefits with arrears of pay with 100o/o compensation to the widow by applying principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand 2019(3) ALD SC 32 and also award the cost of the case..."

3. Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the petitioner placino reliance on the averments made an the the oresent writ oetition affidavit filed in suooort pertaininq in particular, to the services rendered bv petitioner with the respondents herein for more than a decade contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as oraved for in the oresent writ oetition. PERUSED THE RECOED,: DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION unsel aooearinq on b half of the 4. Learned petitioner submits that the subiect issue in the present case is souarelv covered bv the order of this Court, dated 6 Str-, J

08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 reDorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010, dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 19.O9.2017 Dassed in W.P.No.272t7 ot 2O17 reoorted in 2O18 (2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order dated 21.04.2O20 oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoo ed in 2O2O(4) ALD Paqe 379.

5. Learned standinq counsel aooearinq on behalf of the resoondent No.4 submits that the qrievance of the oetitioner as out-forth in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and +h-r.afriFA +ha natitinna r cann m nlr ln nraf i^rr an iha Dart of resDon ents herein in considerino the qrievance of the DEtit oner and hence. ther el lefas raD ved for bw the oetationer in the Dresent Wit petition cannot be oranted and no Mandamus can be assued aoainst the resoondents hereunder as souoht for nd the Detitaoner mav be forth the Detitioner's ori vance as Dut- directed to o forth in the oresent Wrat Petition bv wav of a detailed representation to the respondents herein and upon receiDt of the said reDresentation, the resoondents would 7 n SN, J wi h n r onable oeriod.

6. Lea ed counse aoDeanno on behalf of the oeti does ot disoute the said su mtsston made bv the I a rned I standinq counsel aopearino on behatf of the respondent No.4

7. The Ao Court in the iud ment reDorted an (2020) 1 &s inP n hvS r Pra h others, t oara 36 held a s under: "36. There are sorhe of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularlzation as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they.shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular establishment and the services rendered by them rioht from the dav thev entered 8 SN, J the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as qualifvino service for puroose of pension." a. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of V=l.a=jtb |.arto l.}aA in1 oon, I Cff Drere39 A t n inrinla r that the Stat temoorarv or adhoc service for lono oer od and have to treat such should not keeD a Derson i Dersons as eqular one. 9, Para No.53 of the of th iudoment of the oex court tn the S te of Karnataka a d others Vs. Umadevi, dated 10.04.2() 5 reoorted in (2 6)4SCC1is extracted hereunder:- nsi n dr rlrr crnal rred to in Dara 15 abo "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irre ular aDooin ments (not illeqal ADOOI ments) as exDlained in S.V. Narav NADDA f1967 (1) SCR 1281, R.N. Naniundapoa t1972 (1) scc 4O9I and B.N. Naqaraian I 1979 (4) SCc s07] and r of dulv o alified rrhth t v ade and the emDlovees have continued to work for ten v ntion of orders of the courts or of tri unals. The o estion of r€o ularization of the services f such to be cons idered on m rits in emD the liqht of the DrinciDles settled bv this Court n the , the rred to and in the liqht of conte , the Uni n of Indi rs or mo but witho rra--tt t o ees mav h n ment. In t n Id n 9 (" SN, J measure, the services of such irreqularlv aDoointed, ,l ri^clc nda; aarra r r f u h u rc nf ?ha courts or of trabunals and should further ensure that reoular recr itments are undertaken to fill those rrtarn+ G-6-+ ,t r.t arl rtacia l h ri in cases where temoorarv emolovees or dailv waoers are beino no emDloved. The oroce ss must be set in motion withan six months from this date. .... ha filtaA r.aarrira

10. The iudoment of the Aoex Court dated 2O.12.2O24. reported in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jaqoo Anita and others v. Union of India a d others, and the relevant paraoraph Nos.12, 13, 24. 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereu nder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and contanuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadac or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim bv the respondents that these were not reoular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the appellants was oerennial and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how l0 SN. J 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 hiohlaohts the iudaciarv's role in rectifvano such misclassifications and ensurinq that workers receive fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that iLs principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between ,'illegal" appointments. "irregular" It SN, J It cateooricallv held that emolovees in irreoular a pointments, who were enqaqed in dulv san ioned Dosts and had served continuous! v for more than ten vears should be considered for reoularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective apolication distorts the iudoment's soirit and ouroose, effectivelv weaponizinq it aqainst employees who have rendered indisoen ble services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organlzation's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. t2 SN, J

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 followlng extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.L0.2018 are quashed; The aooellants shall be taken aa. on dutv forthwith and their services reoularised forthwith. However. the aooellants shal! not be entitled oecuniarv benefits/back waqes for the period thbv have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the saad Deriod and the same would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 31.01.2O25 reported in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD,,, in oarticular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: It is manifest that *15. e ADDellant Workmen contin UOu s v rendered their services over several vears- sometimes spanninq more than a decade. Even if certain muster roll were not Droduced in full, the Emplover's failure to furnish such records- desoite directions to do so-allows an adverse inferenc ell-established labour ur law stronolv disfavors iurisoruden ce. Indaan la l3 r') SN, J DETD tua! dailv-waqe or contractual enqaqeme ts in ctrcu mstances where th work is Dermane tin Morall and leoallv, wor ers who fulfil onoo nq munic ioal reouirements vear after vea r cann t be dismissed s mmat'alv s disDen able, oarticul arlv in the bsence of a qenuine contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite '.temporary,, employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2O24 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations t4 SN, J owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Emplovees enoaqed for work that is essential, recurrino, and inteoral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as lltemporary" or "contractua!," even when their roles mirror reqular employees. Such those of misclassification deorives workers of the dionitv. security. and benefits that reqular emplovees are entitled to. despite performinq identicat tasks. . Arbitrary Termlnation: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find - themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . 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 a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regula r employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in t5 SN, J cases of illness, retirement, or unForeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations, Consequenily, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were enoaoed in essential, oerennial duties, these workers cannot be releoated to oeroetual uncertaintv. While concerns of municioal budoet and comoliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, suqh concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv oblioations or neoate eouitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trumo the leoitimate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reoular roles for an extended oeriod. t6 SN, J r o The im oned orde oft he Hioh Court- to the aL extent thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to future ai! -wa e meaninoful back waqes, is herebv set asade with the followinq irections: witho t 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) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination unti! actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuitv of service and al! consequential benefits, such as senioritv and eliqibilitv for promotions, if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement IV. The Resoondent Emoloyer is directed to initiate a fair and transoarent process for reqularizino the Aopellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, dutv considerinq the fact that thev have rformed perennial municioal duties akin to oermanent l7 (-'. SN, J ut m Aratc criteria l,,rar"a posts. In assessino reqularazation, the Emolover shall not imoos educational or retroactivelv if such Drocedu ra I la aA n alrat Aooellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reoular emolovees in the oagt. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are reouired. the Resoondent Emolover shalt expedite all necessarv administrative orocesses to ensure these lonotime emolovees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waoes contrarv to statutorv and eouitaPle norms. -rtrt +ar

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Aoe Court in a iudo ent reDorted in (2017) 1 Suoreme Cou Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaoiit Sino and others at Paras 54 an (1)(2)(3). of the said iudoment obse ed as under: its sub-oaras "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reasont that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions, Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the fuil bench of the High Couft 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, t8 SN, J shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. But if ad hoc aooointees are not aDoointed aoainst reoular osts and their services are availed sanctioned continuouslv, with not al breaks, bv the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lono oeriod i.e. for 7O rs. such dailv waoerc. ad hoc or contractual aooo tees shall be entitled to minimum of the reoular oav scale without anv allowances on the a umotion that work of oerennial na.ture is available and having worked for such lona' oeriod of time, an eouitable rioht is created in such cateoorv of oersons, Their claim for reaularization. if anv, mav have to be considered <att, ratalv ,n iamt sof lco al,lvn erm iss.ible sahenta (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudqment of the ADex Court reDorted in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others. in oarticular, paras 4 to 9 reads as under:

4. The decis on tn State of Karna taka v. Umadevi was rendered

4.2006 1 .In t, Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the coutts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic t9 f ,), SN, J arrangement of its affairs by the state or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daity-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. This court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "53, One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa f 7967 (7) SCR 1281, R.N. Naniundaopa rt972 (t) SCC 4O9l and B.N. Nagaraian L7979 H) SCC SOT| and referred to in para 75 above. of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant oosts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of reoularization of the services of such employees may haye to be considered on of this iudgment. In that context. the llnion of fndia- the State aooointed- who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months frqm this date" .... '5. ft 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) fhe employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunat. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed 20 SN, J the employee and continued him in service continuously for more than ten years. voluntarily and (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iiil Umadevi casts a dutv uoon the concerned Govemment or instrumentalitv, to take steDs to regularize the services of those iteaularly aooointed emolovees who had for more than ten vears efit or orotection of anv in rim orders of without the b courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi. directed that such one-time measure m ust be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 70.4.2006).

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of att 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.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undeftook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, witt not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one_time o 2l SN, J exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. 8. The obiect behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold, First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered. are considered for regularization in view of their lona service, Second is to ensure that the departmentstinstrumentalities do not oeroetuate the oractice of employinq personq on daily-wage/ad- hocf casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that thev have served for more than ten years. thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten years as on vacant posts. possessing the requisite qualification are entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emoloyees. the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in umadevi or thereafter. € 22 SN, J

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees seruing 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. It such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless fo say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of 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. 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a i I I 23 SN, J cadre or sanctaoning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively wathin the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its actaon is arbitrary. It also refused to accept the defence that there were no sanctioned posts there w s iustifica ion for th State to utilise s of laroe number of ole like the aooella ts for decad es. It held that heav n" and th t the Stat sanc ioned oosts do not falI from has to eate them bva consc ious choice on the basi of some rational assessment of need. Referrino to Umadevi, it held that the aooeltants before them were ot arbitrarilv chosen, their initia! appointment was not an 'irreoular' appointment as it had ade in acco ance with th statutorv o cedure Poli 18 1 e cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on oermanent basis as, accordino to it, thear aopointments were purelv temporarv and not aqainst anv sanctaoned posts created ft was held that the iudqment in Umadevi bv the State. 24 SN, J cannot become a lacence for exoloitation bv the State and r m ntaliti h r he Go Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their obliqation to fu nction in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment of the oex Court reoorted in 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 betwee B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municipal Corporation ReD.bv iti Commissioner. Nellore District, Andhra Pradest and others. in oarticular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: t (7) We find it difficult to acceDt reasoninq adooted bv the flows from the G.O. No.272 d,ated 22.4.7994. The aDDellant have been in service of the first resoondent not onlv orior to the rssuance of the said G. sabseqaent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O.212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the seryice of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with etfect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs, M,L, Singh & Ors, 2009 (8) SCC 480. r} 25 SN, J

16. rn Amarkant Rai v state of Bihar reoorted (2o15) g held that .The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregutar but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emplovment of those oersons who had servei the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten vears". rn that case. emplovee was workinq for 29 years. This decision aooroves earlier view exoressed in M.L.Kesari extractgd above.

17. rn state of Jarkhand v Kamal prasad reoorted in (2O14r 7 SCC 223. similar view was taken by the Supreme Court and it was hetd as fottows : "47-..- In view of cateoorical of fact on the interfered with by'this Court." 26 SN, J

18. The Judgment of this court dated 06.12.2022 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 ot 2O23 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024-

19. The iudqment of the Aoex court in Hari Krishna Manclir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reoorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in particular oara Nos.lOO and 10 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 mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a oublic authoritv has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority." 27 SN. .I

20. The Divisi n Ben h of this Court in its Judqment 10.06. 2O13 oassed in W.A.Nos. 782 ot O10 and 854 of 2O1 2 while uoholdin the Jud ment dated O8 .09.2010 Dassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2008 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppe a nt-Corporation also issued various office ordersy'circula rs dated 20.12.1999, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entiUed to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interFerence in these appeals.,,

21. The Division Benc of this Co rt in its Ju oment dated 19.09.2(l 7 oassed in W.P.No .27217 of 20L7 reoorted in 2O18(2IALD oaoe 282 at oara 16 and oara 1g observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a ". .? 28 SN, J go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of notless than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra)' But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 ()f 1994 100 and G.o. Ms. No.212. dated 22.+.t99+. do not whittle down the width and the iudqment in Maniura Basrrini's case (supra), does not Iower the trajectorv of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in..Uma Devi's case Gupra). It is. therefore. not oermissible for the iespondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Mi. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to thi petitioners, who have, admattedly' satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudgment in uma Devi's case (supra).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.20L7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is atlowed with the direction to the resgonctenis lo consider regutarisation of the sirvices of the- petitioners aoainst the existing vacancies of Work insoectors ancl appoint them subiect to their satisfyino thJ criteria laid down in para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (supra). This orocess must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copv of this order."

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment .2O2O oassed in I -A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 dated 21. and W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 at oaras 45, 48 and para 5O observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been wofking on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from 29 r:\ SN, J the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. reqularize their services. 50: Accordingly, the writ petition is ailowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent reje-ting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegar, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2L of the constitution of India; the respondents are, directed to regularize on one-time baG o.tition".r' r.rri".r f.o* the date e""h of th. p"iitio*o gg-pl"!. f O y"?.i ot r..ri"" on a"ity *** tio- tt " t-"nt. eum initlrJ 9"t". of th"i. gntitled to any monetary relief. the saidffi "ppoit dor. *ithin t*o,(Z) *""kr fro. th@ copy of the order,"

23. This court ooines that in the oresent case. the resoondents failed to discharoe their dutv in examinino the request of the oetitioner for reqularization of oetitioner's services, who is wo.rkinq .as full time sweeper ana furtner to cons service of the petitioner in the last orFde post of full time sweeoer as reoular one for all ,purposes by orantinq last qrade oav with oeriodical increment revised from time to / 30 SN, J time from the ctate of aopointment of the petitioner' in accordance to law. 24 This rt oDines that oetitio ner is entitled for consicleration of oetitioner's case for grant of the relief as oravect for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in various iudqments (referrecl to ancl extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

25. Ta ino into consid ration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (refe6ed to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(202o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) ScC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) tz0g a) SN. J 3l (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(e) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC !797 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2Ol2 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2O08 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.O9.2017 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ol 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 (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. {i. t, i 32 SN, J The Writ Petition as al lowed, the Detitioner is laim of the oetitioner for directed to out-forth the reoularization of oetitioner's services. and also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temDorarv services of the Eetitioner in the last grade post of Sweeoer as reoular one for all ourooses bv qrantinq Iast orade oav with oeriodical increments revised from ti e to tame from the date of aooointment of the petitioner and al! consequential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in support of oetitioner's case as put-forth in the Dresent wrat oetition, within a Deriod of one (O1) week from the date of receiot of coov of the order and the resDondents s!,rall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformiW with orincioles of natural iustice bv orovidino an oooortunitv of oersonal hearinq to the oetitioner, in terms of orders oassed bv the Suoreme Court i n ma Devi's case reDorted in 2006(4) SC C Paqe 1, the iudoment oassed in W.P.No.24377 f 2OO7 dated 08.09.2O10 reoorted in 2011 (1) ALD, Paoe 234 and as confirmed in .A.No.782 of 2O1O dated I n .O6.2O13, and also as oer Division Bench Judoment of this Court dated I \ I I j i l 33 Ci $ SN, J

19.09.2o17 passed in w.p.No.27217 of 20o7 reported in 2o18(2)ALD paoe 2g2 and also the Division Bench r.A.Nos.1 of 2o2o in 1 of 2019 in w.p.No.23o57 of 2o19 in2 o20(4)AL Daqe 379 whi finality within a period of four (04) weeks from the date had a consideration the observations and the law laid down by the Apex court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and in oarticutar, para No.53 of the iudqment of the Aoex courf in fhe case of sfate of Karnataka v. llma Devi and dulv communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if dtry, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSTSTANT R9GTSTRAR ,/O SECTISN OFFICER / To One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal)

1. 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

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

4. The Prl. Secretary to Govt., Panchayathraj and Rural Employment Department, State of Telangana, Govt. of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. (t"W " ..,,,,-.:,;.,"ii ,':"ffi

5. The Prl. Secretary to Govt., Finance and Planning Department, State of Telangana, Govt. of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

6. The District Collector and Chairman of lVlinimum Wages Committee and District Selection Committee, Yadadri-Bhongir District, TS.

7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Yadadri-Bhongir District. B. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District, TS.

9. One CC to SRI CH GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP for SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

11.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, Standing Counsel IOPUC]

12. Two CD Copies DAN/MP w + HIGH COURT DATED:1 6/0712025 i I I .l ) i I ! I I l \ \ ORDER WP.No.31 162 of 2021 ';. t e;\l ... ; o 1 g ttB 2026 4t * I I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS J-rs '/l-