Shaik Hussain Saheb v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 Standing Counsel tor ZPP and MPP appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. The oetitioner aporoached the Court seekino oraver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post, even .after exhaust of life energies and youth in 39 years long service, as unjust) unfair, arbitrary and violation of Article L4, L6, 2L, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages of last grade pay and prays to direct the 1't Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 16-06-1982 by applying the decision and principle laid by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) and by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 36 and 37 in the Judgement in C.A.No. 6798/2019 & Batch Cases dated O2-O9-20L9 (20L9 (10) SCC 516) in C.A.No.1254 of 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority with 4 SN.J \rp_32016_2021 arrears of pay in last grade post along with periodical increments, as revised from the date of appointment of the petitioner with 100o/o compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No.3416-3445 of 2010 & Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass. .. .. " 2 Lear aaA Ft\.t n la lttt nbe hrl CaC+ h net t at affidavat nlarina raliA nae on fha a arrtta ntc made in tha filed in suDDort of the oresent writ Detition a h petitioner with the resoondents herein for more than a decade contends that the Detitioner is entitled for the Draved f r in the Dresent writ oetition. li t PERUSED T E RECORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 4. Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the Detitaoner sub its that the subiect issue in the Dresent case rs Grt r l, ra ve rad Jrv ilra arelar trf t hi c f tsttl,j AslaA

08.09.2010 oassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 reoorted in 2O11(1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O, dated 1 -o6 2 13and also order. da dle .J9.2(J17 o Dassed in w.P. Nr:-27217 ol 2Ol7 reoorted i 20 18 (2't ALD ) SN.J wP_3 20 I 6_202 I been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and receiot of the said representation, the resoondents would reasonable period.

6. l 6 SN,J Np 32016,2021 -t ..1 No.4 7 "3(j. There are some of the emPl oyees who have not been regularized in sP ite of having ren dered the services for 30- 40 or more Years whereas theY have been suPerannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establish ment, ht to not against any Pa rticular Project, their services oug have been regularized under the Government instructions this Court in State of the decision of and even as Per This Court in the said Karnataka versus Umadevi ( 3)11. e services have been ion has laid down that in cas ut the cover of the re rde red for more than ten Years witho the servlces be as one-time measure, Cc'urt's order, regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case' who have worked for ten years or more those emPloYees should have been reg ularized. It would not be Proper to req ulate them for consi deration of reg ularization as others e been regularized, we direct that their services be h;,v tr(:ated as a regular one. However, it is made . clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming anY dues of difference continued in service reg ularly in wag bofore attaining the age of suPe rannuation. TheY shall be entitled to receive the Pension as if theY es had theY been t 7 SN,J wp_32016 2021 persons as reqular one. hereunder:- are beino now employed. The process must be set in 8 rvp_3201 6 SN,J 2021

10. hereunder: *12. Despite being labelled as ,,part-time wrcrkers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous barsis over extensive periods, ranging i-* ov'er a decade to nearly two decaOesl Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to _the responsibirities 'tv-plcarrv with sa.nctioned posts. Moreover, "ssoci"ted -otfr"t" thr: respondents did not engage -the personnel for these task! - during appellants tenure, underscoring the inclispensable nature of their work. "ny 13, necessitates The recurring nature of these duties clas;sification as regular posts, irrespective of how the,r initial engageme nts were labelled. It is a lso noteworthy that su bsequent outsourcing of th ese same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termina tion demonstrates the inherent need for these se rvices. This act of outsourcin 9, whir:h effectively replaced one set of worke rs with another further underscores that the work in que:;tion was nei ther temporary nor occasional. : i d 9 SN,J wp_320 I 6_202 I

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d Ll87 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entifled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highliohts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvino such misclassifications and ensuring 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 its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that employees in irreqular appointments, who were enoaoed in dulv sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten vears should be con idered for ularization 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 "irregular" l0 SN,J wp_32016 2021 aplointments are not illegal, but merely lack ad rerence to procedural formalities. Government de3artments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to reltularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit ov:rlooking the acl<nowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective apolication distorts the iudoment's soirit and ouroose, effectivelv weaDo izinq it aqa anst emDlovees who have n decades. In light of these considerations, in our 27. opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a ternporary basis for extended periods, especially wl'ren their roles are integral to the organization's furrctioning, not only contravenes international latrour 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 set"s a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orrlers passed by the High Court and the Tribunal arrr set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.10.2018 are quashed; EE'- -.-- _;-.*.++-- ,:ii.. { SN,J wp_-32016_202 r ii. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services reqularised forthwith. However, the aopellants shall not be entitled pecuniarv benefits/back waoes for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post- retiral benefits."

11. The Judqment of the Apqle Court dated 31.01.2025 reported in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in particular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: "15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several vears, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full. the Emolover's failure furnish such records- despite directions to do so-allows an adverse l-established labour inference iurisprudence. Indian labour law stronqlv disfavors oerpetual dailv-waqe or contractual enqaoements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morallv and I allv, workers who fulfil ongoino municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarilv as disoensable, oarticularlv in the absence of a oenuine contractor E:- ' I YT9T 1r, I t2 SN,J wp_320 I 6_202 I aoree ent. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to rer:all the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, ds exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public 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 govern menta I operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several waysl . Misuse "TemDorarv" Labels: Emolovees enoaqed for work that is essential, recurrinq, and inteqral to the functionino of an institution are often labelled as "temoorarv" or en their roles mirror "contractual," even t,l 4 i,.f_r::i il-r-. t3 SN,J wp_32016-2021 l^rat danrirraa reoular emPlovees. Such those of miaalrccifia diqnity, security' and benefits that reoular emplovees are entitted 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 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 regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some t4 SN,J rvp_320 I 6_202 I measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left irt 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 comrtenSurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. t7. tn 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, L947, and that thev were enoaqed in esserrtial, perennial ctuties. these workers cannot be releoatecl to peroetual uncertainty. While concerns W recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns clo nrct absolve the Emolover of statutorv oblioations eed. bureaucratic limitations cannot trumo the leoitimate riohts of workmen who have servecl continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended period' eouita le entitl ents. I

18. -rhe impuqned order of the Hioh court, to the externt thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to future daily-waqe enoaqement without continuitv or t5 SN,J wp-320t6_202t followins directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industriar Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All oid"r, 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 lll pr.poses, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in thei'r respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the'date of this judgment. "ornt"d for gontinritu oi ,.irii.- "nd- "tl cgns.eqrential ben"fits, srch as serioriti anJ III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant workmen shail be entiiled to 500/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation untir their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. l6 wp_3201 6_ SN,J 2021 ': \i ._l 't

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the wcrkmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed"' L2. vs Jaojit sinoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-Daras (1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed as under: ,,54 ,,Tt1e Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upontheabovecontroversyhadcon.cluded,thattemporary ernployeeswerenotentitledtotheminimumoftheregularpay- sc,ale, merely for the reason| that the acti.vities carried on by daity-wageri ana regular employees.were similar. The full bench however, iaae twi exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at ttte minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees' The e.<ceptioni recorded'by the full bench of the High court in the irtpugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager' ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts' if appointed after unaiiioirg a ielection process based upon fairness. and equatity if opportunity to atl -olher eligible candida-tes' shall be entitted to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. apoointees are not apoointed against regq-lar their services are availed sanctioned poits ffi t7 SN,J wp_32016_2021 continuously. with notional breaks. by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 70 years. such dailv waaers. ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reaular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of oerennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such categorv of persons. Their claim for regularization. if any, mav have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme, (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wageL ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The judoment of the Apex Court reoorted in 201O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular. oaras 4 to 9 reads as under:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered CC1 In 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 courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic 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 daily-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 Ei.r 1\.: l8 SN.J \rp_320 I 6_202 I adherence of Articles 14 and 76 of the constitution. This court however made one exception to the above position and the satne is extracted below : "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 futfilled : (i) 1-he employee concerned shoutd have worked for 10 years or mote in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the sfate Government or its instrumentatity should have emptoyed the employee and continued him in senrice voluntarily and conl'inuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointmen.t of such employee shoutd not be illegal, even if irregular. where the appointments are not made or t/eJr l9 SN,J rvp_320 I 6_202 I continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments witt be considered to be illegal. But where the iirtoi 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'

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its properperspective,Thiswouldnormallymeanthatafterthe decision in umadevi, each department or each instrumentality shoutd undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all iuiii4 daily-wage or ad hoc employees who ha.ve 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 fhe rejuisite qiatification fir {he post and if so, regularize their services. 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in lJmadevi, cases of severat daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees consequently, several were stitl pending before departments and iistrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. on the other hand, some Governient departments or instrumentatities undertook the one-timeexerciseexcludingseveralemployeesfrom consideration either on the groind that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer iversight. In such circumstances, the emtployees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one'time exercise was coipleted without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- iage/ianoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of 'courts. ' -q.ifr 20 SN,J wp_320 I 6_202 I continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the prcttection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any 'en,ployer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Uniadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of llmadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of thet one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded snty when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in ierms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered' m'easure. g. These appeals have been pending for more than four years atter the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, G,adag) has not considered the cases of respondents of re:gularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or tt,ereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the c;,ses of respondents should be considered in accordance with 2t SN,J wp_320 I 6_202 I law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of I,Jmadevi, 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 wige/casuat/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of umadevi, their sen/ices 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 dad not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the state and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter 22 SN,J wp_32016_2021 exclusi\rely within the authority of the State, but if the State diid not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationrship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi 23 SN,J wp_32016 2021 accordance with the Constitution. (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the aopellants to seek regularization ftows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.7994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent 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 service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstance, refusing the benefit pf the above B. mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not iustified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Coltector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.

16. SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that 'The objective n 24 SN,J wp_32016_202t t behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregulatr but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of ,, M.L.Kesari extracted above. Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : !!1.... In view of the categorical findino of fact on the rel'evant contentious issue that the resoondent employees have continued in their service for more than lO years continuouslv therefore- the legal principle eid down bv thils court in umadevi case (state of Karnataka v ttmadevi (!17O6) 4 SCC 7 : 20O6 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarety aprolies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the fllrh Court has rightly held that the respondent Wptovees are entitl intertered with by this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.ZO2Z passed in w.P.No.2t6o2 of 2o19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of sri Lakshmi Narasimha *.:-;d Y: 25 SN,J wp_32016_2021 Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this court inW.A.No.937ot2023dated10.10.2023andalso confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 tn SLP No.32847 ot 2O24' Mandir Trust v. state of Maharashtra and others reoorted in AIR 2O2O Supreme court 3969 and in Darticular para Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of In dia, not onlY have the power to issue a writ of mandamu s or in the nature of mandamus, consideration. 101. In all such cases, the High iourt must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in anappropriateandlawfulmannerofthediscretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

20. The Division Bench of this court in its Judoment dated 10.06.2013 passed in w.A.Nos.782 of 2o1o and 854 of 2012 while upholdino the Judoment dated 08.09.2010 26 a SN.J wp_320 I 6-202 I passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "FLrrther, it is manifest from the material on record that the selvices of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued var-ious office orders/circulars dated 20.L2.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7 .2009 for regularization of ca:;ual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T r>f the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the ca:;es on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and cortinuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair laLrour 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 entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the le6rned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view dces not warrant interference in these appeals." dated 19.O9. O17 Dassed in W.P.No.27 217 of 2OL7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD paoe 282 at para 15 and oara 18 observed as under:- *1.6. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article L4L of the Crnstitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the jurdgment in lJma 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 p3rsons, who entered service through back doors by giving a gc-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption /regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this rr:gard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. 27 SN,J wp 32016_2021 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 Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the width and the iudgment in Manjula Eashtni's case (supra), does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma DeviS case (supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.20t7, in OA No.1442 of 20L4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). This process must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

22. dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 4A- It is not known whv 1st resnondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (supra), as 28 , SN,J wp_320 I 6_202 I

50. AccordinglY, the writ Petiti on is allowed; the imPugned orders dated 20.8.2019 Passed bY the 1st resPondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regula rization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal , arbitrary and violative of Constitution of India; the Articles !4, 16 and 2t of the copv of the order."

23. accordance to law. 29 SN,J wp 32016 2021 24 t, * { ! It r* ; 5 q ! I id facts and circu issions made bY petitio a) The aforesa The subm ring on behalf of the on beha lf of th b) counsel appearing rnstances of the case' the learned counsel and learned standing Nos'4 & 5 e respondent ations of the APex to and extracted Court in the various above) and again c) The observ (referred iudgments entisted below: i) (2o 20) .'^ P!!.(tt?L as u *),",'.',riiij,iit*)12os H:EiklH}H= zsc,,e, tl,iiil'iots s' 30 SN,J wp_3 20 I 6_202 I \-..1 - { (i>r) (2o1s) 8 Scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2005) 4 scc 1 (>:iv) 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 2(J12 rarhile uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (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 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No,23fJ57 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition is allowed, the petitioner is directecl to out-forth the claim of the petitioner for "Tr 3l SN,J wp 32016_2021 reoularization of petitioner's services, and also the claim of the petitioner to treat the temporary services of the oetitioner in the last grade post of Sweeper as reoular one for alt purposes bv qrantinq last orade oav with periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the oetitioner and all consequential benefits, duly enclosinq all the relevant documents in supoort of petitioner's case as put-forth in the present writ petition, within a period of one (01'l week from the date of receiot of copy of the order and the resoondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformitv with orincioles of natural iustice by orovidino an opportunity of personal hearino to the petitioner, in terms of orders passed bv the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reportecl in 2OO6(4) SCC Paoe 1 the iudqment nassed in W.P.No.24377 O8.O9.2O1O reported in 2O11 (1) ALD, Paoe 234 and as 2OO7 dated confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10.O6.2O13, and atso as per Division Bench Judoment of this Court dated

19.09.2017 passed in w.P.No.27217 of 2OO7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 and also the Division Bench Ux SN,J wp-32016_202t )Z D n order as to costs. Misce,aneous petitions, if doy, pending in this writ Petition, srall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To One fair copy to the HON,BLE MRS. J (for Her Ladyship,s Ki Sd/, M. NAGAMAN SISTANT REG SECTION OFFICER REPALLI NANDA 1 2' raj a nd R u ra r E m p rovm e nt Dep a rtm e n t, # ra,irrJl,?''Sl.?3,ffi 51 3r f;3?,iiSIlth #en!!,ff'B?1,3",!|:tsg6r5inrn." and Planning Department, secretariat, 3' The Districr coilec-tor, (panchayat) and chairman of Minimum wages Act and District serection committee,'xhi.rrm District, Khammam. 4' lil:rfi*L Executive officer, Ziila praja parishad, Khammam District,

5. The Mandal pa District, TS rishad Development Officer, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam r , --e-ohtd r

6. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OpUC] 7' to GP for SERVICES ll, High courr for the State of relangana. IJ,?r""t

8. one cc to sRr K.PRADEEP REDDY, sc for Gpp/M pptzpp topucl 9. 11 LR.Copies 10.The under secretary, union of rndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company , '11'The secretary, Advocates' Association Library, High court Buirdings, Hyderabad. - 12.Two CD Copies. Afferirb; New Delhi.. . , - BSl(MP ?o'rCr. : HIGH COURT t-l ATED:20t0$t2l2s I 1 \ ORDER WP.No.3Z016 of 2021 () 10 t IB 2026 * * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION OUT COSTS Pmq, 'ql >l>t' l :: ,i 1i ,1