The High Court · 2025

2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2OlO, dated 1O.O5.2O13 and also order. da ted 19.o9.2017 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2017 reoorted in 2O18 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.2O2O Dassed in W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reported in 2O2O(41 ALD Paqe 379.

5. Learned sta ndinoco unsel a DOearrno onbehalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the r -fo hin h res nt Wri Petiti nha been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and fherefdrF, f he nFtitin n r .A nn.)t an m ri A n in.a.ti6 n at n the Dart of resoondents herein in co nsideri no the orievance of e relief as ra ed r h oetitioner in the present Wit oetit ton canno be oranted t and no Mandamus can be issued aqainst the respondents hereunder as souqht for and the petitioner may be directed to put-forth the oetitioner's qrievance as put- of a detailed forth in the oresent wrat Petition bvw a a-\ 7 s\.l representation to the resoonden ts herein and upon receipt of the said representation, the resoo l Cen ts would consider the same ln accordance to la within a I rea sonable oeriod.

6. Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of Ilr itioner does not dispute the said submission made b1 the learned standin o counsela DNeann oontr ehalf of th' f s ondent No.4

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment reporte(! in (2O2O )1 scc L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar l'radesh and others. at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who hai,: regularized in spite of having rendered the servil 40 or more years whereas they have been supr_. - As they have worked in the work-charged est. I not against any particular project, their services have been regularized under the Government il and even as per the decision of this Court rr Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court .l decision has laid down that in case services I rendered for more than ten years without the co Court's order, as one-time measure, the sr: regularizr:d of such employees. In the facts of those employees who have worked for ten yea': should have been regularized. It would not be regulate them for consideration of regularization have been regularized, we direct that their s r treated as a regular one. However, it is made, they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of in wages had they been continued in servicc not Deen :s for 30- nnuated. lishrnent, ought to ;fructions State of the said rve been er of the vices be he case, or more )roper to rs oth ers vlces be lea r that ifference regularly 8 SN. J before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reqular establi hment and the servrces rendered bv them riq ht from the dav thev entered the work-char oed establishment shall be counted as oualifvinq service for DurDose of oension."

8. The Dex Court in the se of Dharwad Di rict PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Ka rnata k reno rted in 1990 ( ) scc Paoe 396 laid nn nctD e that the State should not k eo a oerson rn tem orD arv or adhoc se vice for lonq oeriod and have to treat such Dersons as reou lar one.

9. Para No.53 of the of th iudoment of the oex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi. dated C 1is extracted 1O.O4.2OO6 re Dorted in (2006 4SC ) h ereu nder:: R.N. Nan R1 B.N "53. One asDect needs to be clari fied . There mav be (not illeqal irreoular aDDointments cases whe x lained in V.N ra ana L967 1 a scc 409 'l and Naqa raian f1979 (4) Scc 5071 and refe red to in oara 1 5 above, of dulv oualified vacant Dosts mioht have Dersons in dulv sanction been made and the emo lovees have con inued to work for ten vears or more but wit out the i nte rven ion of orders of the courts or of ribunals. The oues onof reo u la riza on of the servl ces of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in in the the lioht of the Drtn led bv this Court cl oles 197 t a 1 9 s\. l ca ses abovereferred to and in the I rqht of this iudqm ent. In that context, the Union nf India the State Governments and their in st! umentalities should take steDs to req u la rize as a one-time measure ,thes ervices of such irrequla rJ, appointed, who have worked for ten vears or n rore in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of _.rrders of the cou rtsoroft ribu na ls and should fu rthe n ure tha reo ular rec ruitments are undertaken o fill vacant sa nctioned oosts that reou ire tc 1be filled uo. rn ca ses where tem oora rv emolov _ lailv waoers s or are beinq now emoloved The oro ess n ! lrst be set in mot ion within six month s from thi s date

10. The udqment of the Aoex Court reported in 2()24 LawSuit others v. Union of India and other paraqr (sc) 12O9 in and the re leva nt Nos.12, 13 24,26, 27 and28; L e extracted s Jag I oAnita a nd 1 datec 2 .t2.2024 hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as ,'part- time workers, " the appellants performed t rrese essential tasks on a daily and contirr.rous basis over extensive periods, ranging ,'rom over a decade to nearly two decades. - "heir engagement was not sporadic or temp( rary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, rer; trlar, and akin to the responsibilities typi:aily associated with sanctioned posts. More(,ver, the respondents did not engage any c ther personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim bv the resDond the nature of the work performed ese w r _ that i,, as bl' the a.aa t0 SN, J f f aooellants was perennaal and fundamental to ces. The recu rrin h s nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies . after the appellants'termination demonstrates the in he re nt 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. Couft 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 r uch mi !a ssifica workers receive fa ir treatment. 's role in rectif nd ensurin

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 It SN, ] "irregular" often misinterpreted or misapplied tr.r deny legitimate claims of long serving employe,.,s This judgment aimed to distinguish between 'i tega,' appoinl- rents. It cateqoricallv held that em olove e s in irreoular a DD ointments, who were enqa c ed in san ctioned Dosts and had s ;, ,:rved continuou slv for more than ten vears ! rould be con sid e red for reqularizationasa one- t ime nteasure. However , the laudable inlt nt cf the jud lment is being subverted when insti_ rtio n s rely or its dicta to ind rscrim inately rejr:c . the claims of employees, even in cases wher-,: appointments are not illegal, but merelT adherence to procedural formalities. Gover r departnrents often cite the judgment in Unr. Devi (supra) to argue that no vested riql regularization exists for temporary emplc yees, judgment's il overloo<ing the :plicit acknowledgment of cases where regularizat on is appropriate. This selective application dis the iudqment's soirit and ourpose, effec! weaponizinq it aoainst emolovees who_ re nd e red i nd isoe nsa ble deca dg s. servt ces

27. In light of these considerations, I our opinion, it is imperative for goverr ment departrnents to lead by example in provid n; fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, esp( cially when tl-rerr roles are integral to the organiz.t.ion's functioning, not only contravenes internir ional labour standards but also exposes the organl, ation to legal challenges and undermines emplrryee morale. By ensuring fair emplol,r,nent practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litig rtion/ promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach ir igns wath international standards and s(!j s a I l2 SN. J positave 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 orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following exte n t: i. The termination orders dated 27 .LO.20lB are quashed; f The aooellants shall be taken !t. d utv forthwith and their back on o rthwith. reoula ised se rv r ces However, the appellants shall not be entitled pecunrary benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 31.01.2O25 re orted in 2025 INSC 144 in " IPAL AND A THER v. NA AR NI AM HAZIAB r EV nt para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: '15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously re[dered their services over several vears, sometimes soanninq more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the Emolover's failure furnish such records- despite directions lo !a so-allows an adverse r3 SN. J f I we ll-establishr:, I dence. Indian labo rla infer ence labour stront lv disfavors DE TDEtual dailv-waqe or co ntractual en( ,roelnellts in ctrcumstances where th e work is o 6 rmanent in nature. Morallv an d leqally, worker,i w o fulfil onqorno municipal reouiremen ts vea : after vear cannot be dismis ed summarilv as I ensable particularlv in the absence of a qenuirl: contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be . ppropriate to recall l-he broader critique of indefinitr: "temporary" employment practices as done by a recenl udgement of this cor,rrt in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporar', emcloyment cc,ntracts, as exemplified in this cas:, reflects a broader systemic issue that adr,:'sely aFfects w,rrkers' rights and job security. t ^ the private se:ctor, the rise of the gig economy I as led to an increase in precarious employment a rrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practic.r; have been criticized for exploiting workers anc undermining laoour standards. Government instituli( ns, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairnc; ; and justice, berar an even greater responsibility i I avoid such el ploitative employment practices. /r/hen public sector entities engage in misuse r f temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detr tlental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode pu llic trust in governmental operations. 25i. It is a disconcerting reality tf i t temporary employees, particularly in governmerr institutions, often face multifaceted forms of expl ) tation. While the foundational purpose of temporary ( ontracts may t4 SN, J have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism Lo 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o Misuse of "Temoora rv" Labels: E olovees for work that is essential, recu rrt no, enqaqe and inteoral to the functioninq of a i nstitution are often labelled as "temDora tv" or "contra tual," even w en their roles mtrror Such misclas ification deprives workers of the diqnitv, securitv, and benefits that reoular re entitled to, desoite oerfo rm i nq emolovees emolovees. requla r entical tas . 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, l5 SNJ and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social securit;, subjects them and their families to undue hardsh t, especially in cases of illness, retirement, )- unforeseen c ircu mstances. "

16. l-he High Court did acknowledge t te Employer,s inability tc justify these abrupt terminations. ConsequenUy, it ordered re-engagement on daily wac ( 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 urr( ertain status. While l,he Hlgh Court recognized the impc r tance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatio r, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meanincf tl back waoes commensurate with the degree of stat I :ory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, tf 3 Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workrrr n stands in violatio:r of the most basic labour law princiI es, Once it is established that their services were termi rated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the L . P. Industria I Disputes Acl, 1947, and that thev werel enoaqed in ess ntial, Derennial duties. these workti "s cannot be releqated t DETDE ual uncertaintv.wll ile concerns ofm unlcr al bu dqet and compli ance with recr uitmen t rules merit co nsideration, s g ch concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorl oblio ations T deed ons ca itim ate ntitle ent not tru Dtl ,gl eouitab neo ate aucrati !imita 1 i I 16 SN, J riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended oeriod.

18. The imouqned order of the Hiqh Court. to the extent thev confine the Ao Dellant Workmen to future enqaqement without continuitv or dailv-waoe meaninoful back waoes, is herebv set aside with the folLowinq directions: 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. AII 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 per-formed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeri od of absence (from the date of e counted for continui of servtce and all conseouential benefits, such as senioritv and eliqibility for Dromotions, if anv. ination until actu lr tn m r III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% 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 aespondent EmDlover is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for hin si t Workmen t7 SN, J r n months from th date of reinstal:r:rment, dulv considerino the fact that thev havr: performed I munici al duties I Dermanent p!)sts. In assessinq requlari g,rtion, the Emolover shall not impose edu r:ational or orocedural crit ria retroactivel if such reouirements were never aooli ,:d to the Aooellant Work en or to similerr'lv situated reoular emolovees in the oast. Trr the extent that sanct o n ed vacancies for such ,dutles exist or are reouired. the Respondent Er1 plover shall exoed ite all necessarv administrati ! e Drocesses a e not indefinitelv retai ned on dailv waoe s contrarv to statutorv and equitable norms. re these lon time m 'I tt I

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmer are allowed, whereas the appeal(:; filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Aoex Court in iudqment reoorted in (2OL7'l L SuDreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniall and others vs Ja OIit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and it s sub-paras (1)(2)(3), of the said iud qment observed as u! der: "5.1 "Ihe Full Bench of the High Court, wt i ? adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, .1 at temporary employec:s were not entitled to the minimum of tt ? regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activitie:i carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary emp'( yees, who felt in either of the two exceptions, were held entitte d to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular : nployees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the Hiq t Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "():..) A daily wager, ad hoc or contracl ral appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if i )pointed after l8 SN, J 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. 2 But if d aooointees are not aooointed aoa nst reaular d hoc or I continuouslv, with notional breaks, n are av, v the State rnment or i liti, sforasu lono period i.e. for 70 vears, such dailv waoers. ad hoc or contr,actual aooointees shall be entitled to um of the on the cale witho that work Derennia I nature is availa le and havino worked for such lono oeriod of time, an eoui ble rioht is e,r claim for created in such ca teaorv of oercons. if anv. mav have to considered reoularizatio sef,eratel tn te rrns of leoallv oe rmtssihle 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 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 Aoex Court reoort d in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others . in oarticular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as u nde r:

4. The decision in State ofKarnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reoorted in 2006 4) SCC 1). In that case, a Constituti on 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 Afticle 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 t9 SN, J constituL'ional scheme; and that the courts mus ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wttt arrangetnent of its affairs by the State or its t : nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita,( of the constitutional and statutory mandates. Tltt held that a temporary, contractual, casual ct employee does not have a legal right to be nr, unless he had been appointed in terms of the rel? adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitLt however made one exception to the above pc same is extracted below : . be careful in the economic trumentalities, the bypassing ; Court further a daily-wage de permanent lant rules or in on. This Court ;ition and the ,_ '! of ttt, .t ointm n 728 R.nt "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. _l'here may be cases where irreaular appointments (not illeqal ex la in di Na ravana DDA nda n [7972 (7) 7967 SCC 40gl and B.N. Naoarajan [7979 _ 41 SCC SOT| and referred to in Dara 75 above, of ,,lulv oualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant Do:; s mioht have been made and the emolovees have_ continued to work for ten vears or more but _ without the intervention of orders of the courts c of tribunals. The ouestion of reqularizatio ces of such em Dlovees mzv have to be i )nsidered merits in the lioht of the Drinciples :t:tttled bv this Court in he cases abovere ferred to a 7 d in the lioht of this iudoment. In that context. ..he lJnion of India, instru mentalities should take steDs t(t reqularize as a one-time measure. the services of st1::h irreoularlv aopointed. who have worked for ten tears or more in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not u, der cover of l orders o further ensure that reqular recr L itments are undertaken to fill those vacant san l tioned oosts that require to be filled uo, in '.:ases where temDorarv emol.o ees or dail waqt,'s are beins now emoloved- The orocess m ust be ) t:et in motion within s months from this date. .... the courts or of tribunals and State Governments and "5. It is evident from the above that there to the general principles against 'regularizatiol Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfitted : ; an exception enunciated in (i) The employee concerned should have worked or 70 years or more in '7uly sanctioned post without the benefit ( r protection of 20 SN, J the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be i egat, 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. tt, Uma Governm nt or reoulariz the services of instrumenta litv, to take steps to those irreoularlv a DDointed e con o ees who rved for m without the b efit or Drotection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must e set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OOG).

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 instrumentatity should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

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 instru mentalities undertook 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 2l 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose tlrr considered for regularization, merely because exercise was completed without considering t because the six month period mentioned in para has expired. The one-time exercise should cort: wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put i,1 continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withor-tt protection of any interim orders of courts or l.'t employer had held the one-time exercise in ternr: Umadevi,. but did not consider the cases of some r were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevt concerned should consider their cases also, as a the one-time exercise. The one time exercise vt'l only when all the employees who are entitled io in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considere,l SN, J ir right to be the one-time eir cases, or t3 of Umadevi ider all daily- 1O years of availing the tu nals. If any of para 53 of mployees who the employer ontinuation of be concluded be considered I r, ! \ L n I

8. The obiect behiod the said direction it oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure th i t those who o tin uous service without the protection of anv interim order of courts or tmadevi was tribun als before the date of decision tn ,nv ew of rendere t( 'e that their loLlq service, Second is to ens. departments/ iostfumentalities do not pet'petuate the practice of emplovins Dersons on dat'lv-waqe/ad- ert periodicallv hoc casu reqularize them on the qround that thev ha,e served for more than ten vears, thereby defeatinq the !onstitutional or statutorv provisions relatinq to recr.,itment and is that all a tir t oersons who have worked tor more than ter ' years as on 7O.4.2OOG (the date of decision in Umadevl without the orotection of any interim order of any court !'r tribunal. in ttification. are fhe fact that exercise of reoularization within six months of thet decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undetlaken onlv in limited few. will not dise ntitle such reoard to a emplovees, the rioht to be considered for leoularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi lts a one-time measure. entitled to be conside undertaken such intment. The tru eem lo SSeSSrn d r f , ,

9. These appeals have been pending for more i, an four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Ztla panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of l spondents of 22 SN, I regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six monthsl a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/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 7 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, 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 su itable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

74. In the iudqment of the Apex Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Punia b reported in (2013) 14 SCC 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 SN. J control vested with the State. It held that the |reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre s a matter exclusively within the authority of the State , but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ctr rse to make appointments of persons creating contractua! relationship, its action is arbitrary. It alstl refused to accept the defence that there were no san<! ioned oosts and so there wast ustification for the Sta t r: to utilise services of larqe number of oeople like the aI pellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts do r ot fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious ch oice on the basis of some rationa I assessment of need. Referrino to madevi, it held that th ) appellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, rlheir initial aDrrointment was not an 'irreqular' appointm ( nt as it had been made in accordance with the statutor- | Droce d ure under the Poli 1861 an( the State cannot be heard to sav that thev are not e g titled to be a bsorbed into the services of t e State orr permanent A basis as, accordino to it, their a DDointments _,vere ourelv temporarv and not aoainst anv sanctioned rl lsts created L 24 SN, J bv th e State. It was hel that the iudqment in Umadevi can not become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and instrumentali n the G vern those ublic rB n s n continu ctice inconsisten wt h li ation to fun h n ccordance with h n

15. The iudoment of the Aoex Court re rted in 2015 sCC Online s L797 between B.Srinivasu! and others V Nellore Mu nicioal Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore Distri , Andhra Pradesh and othe rs, in particular oarasTandSr eads as under: e reasontn o ado Dted bvt e (7) We find it difficult to acce L h Hioh Court. The riqht of the apoellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 The appellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of G.O. till todav. 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. B. 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 effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Coutt in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M. L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480, 25 SN, J

15. In Amarkant R tv or i ,:d (2015 )8 cac 265 the Su rtr m a aarr r rf held that 'Tl e objective fB behind the exception carved out in this case vr:rs to permit regularization of such appointment, which I re irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmentrr which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure security of emDlovment of those Dersons who had servr d the State Government and their instrumentalities for rr t)re than ten Vears". In that case, em plovee was workinq t lr 29 vears. This dec s on a nnroves earlier vi ew et( l)ressed in M.L.Kesari ex racted above.

17. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in (20L4) 7 SCC 223. similar view was tal en bv the Suoreme Court an d it was held as follows : in the, "47..,. In view of the cateoorical findino t1 fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondt tt emDlo vees '! an 70 vears rtid down bv continuouslv therefo re, the leoal orinciole this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnat. t,ra v Umadevi 2.)0 SCC (L&SI 73, at Dat'i 53 squarelv (20061 4 SCC 7 apolies to the oresenf cases. The Division _Bench of the Hioh Court has riohtlv held that thet resDondent emolovees are entitled for the relief. the sat te cannot be interfered with bv this Court," 26 SN, J

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2O24.

19. The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 and in particular para Nos.lOO and 1O1 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 dutv-bound to exercise such ower where the Gover has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicy decision of the Government or has exercised ent or a ublic authori re nm n h I R 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." i-r 27 SN. J

20. The Division Bench of this Court in i r; Judqment t dated 10.O6.2O13 passed in W. A.Nos.782 of ll .l1O and 854 of 2OL2 while up holdinq the Judqment date, 08.09.2010 j passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.N! 48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Futher, it is manifest from the material on r services of the similarly placed persons who appr Courts \^/ere regularized. The appellant-Corporat various office ord ers/circu la rs dated 20.12.19i|' 06.10.2Cr07 and latest being 4.7.2009 for r: casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen I T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice L,' or workrnan. As can be seen from the factua cases on hand, engaging the respondents for :;r continuous period of time on casual basis is nct labour practice attracting the provisions of Sec.r ID Act. -fhe learned Slngle Judge while relying r of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respond -. to regularization as directed in the impugned learned single -Judge considered all the aspects c detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our ( does not warrant interference in these appeals." )cord that the rached the law cn a lso issued , LI.09.1992, lularization of rat Section 25- any employer cena rio of the ch a long and ring but u nfa ir )n 25-T of the I the decisions rts are en titled rrders, as the ' the matter in rnsidered view 2L. The Division Bench of this Court in il s Judqment dated 19.O9.2017 oassed in W.P. No 27217 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD paqe 282 at Dara 1(1 and para 18 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the SJ blnding throughout the country under Articl Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that L 1 judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms, 22.4.t994, were in existence. The Suprerne denouncing the practice of regularizatlon and persons, who entered service through back dc,r :reme Court is 141 of the the time the rendered, the \o.212, dated Court, while rbsorption of f rs by giving a 28 SN, J go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bso rption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given dlrections 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, daled 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 regu la rization/a bsorption 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 /ulaniula Eashrni s case (supra). does not l.rr rar i<crrad hrr fha SuDreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's case (suora). It is, therefore. not oermissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, to denv reqularization to rarhn hawe a.lrrriftcal fhF nctiti.tnerc crateria laid down in Para No,53 of the iudqment in Uma Devi's case (supra). fha diraetirrn< <at sfia.l traia.f.riv 6f qa il .t Fd r rif

18. For the aforementioned reasons. order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and t h w iit netifi.iri h respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the oetitioners aoainst the existinq vacancies of Work InsDectors and aDDoint them subiect to their satisfvinq the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (suDra). This process must be comDleted wathin two months from the date of receiot of a coov of this order." e .lire.+ arri tar t h f h

22. The Divisiox Beneh of this court in its Judqment dated 21.04.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and w.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD paqe 379 at paras 45,48 and oara 5O observed as under:- "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 *.< 29 SN, J the year 2000. They have been continuously v orking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till d;rl :. 48. It is not known whv the 1st resoorr rlent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's ca:;r, (suora ), as exDla ined in M.L. Kesari's case suDra) an( L undertaken a one-time exercise of oreoarin q the list f dailv waqe orked for mo emD lo ees who had than i:n ( 10 vears without the intervention of the Courts and -L ibunal as on 1O,4.2OO6 an d subiect them to a Drocess ve r ification as to whethe r osts an DOSSeSS requisite oualifications for the oor ts. and if so, reqularize the rr servtces. thev are workinq aqainst vaca !.1 e !

50. Acc,:rdingly, the writ petition is allowed. the rmpugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st resp: tdent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of s€ -vices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary I rd violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to reqularize on 2 rre-time basis petitioners' services from th e date each of t re oetitioners co m D e 1O vears of service on dailv wlres fr m the initial ates of their aDoointmen t. But, th( t shall not be entitled to anv monetarv re ef. The said ex ! rcise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the dato of receiDt of coDv of the order."

23. This Court ooines that in the prese t t case, the resDondents failed to discharqe their dutv I examtn rno the reouest of the Detation er r requl trizati on of I Detationer's services, who is workinq as full 1: me sweeper and further to consider his request to treat th,e temDorarv servrce of the Detitio ner ln the last o de oo:; of full tame swee er as reo ular one for all ourooses bv ! rrantinq last qrade oav with oeriodical increment revised .1 rom t me to 30 SN, J time from the date of aooointment of th oetitioner, in accordan ce to law,

24. This Court ooines that petitioner is en con side ti ra on of oetitioner's case for orant of the relief as rit Dafition in view f fha observations of the Apex Court in various iudqments (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the nrav ed for in f h racanf Division Bench of this Court in the Jud qments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq 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 (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (aai) 2025 rNsc 144 (av) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 a'l 31 SNI (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2Ct1O(9) sCC 247 (vii) (2013) 14sCc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC t797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ol 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this ( ourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1Cr and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment datecl 08.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.N,I ,48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this ( ourt dated

19.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this ( ourt dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 rrf 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 (referred to and extra(: ed above). g) In the light of discussion and conctusion i,s arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the presenl: ,)rder. 32 SN, J The Writ Petition is allowed, the Detitioner is directed to put-forth the claim of the petitioner for reqularization of oetitioner's servt ces a nd also th claim e of the petitioner to treat the temporar\Lservices of the t! etitioner in the last rade ost o Swee n e nai a,c rarr r rlrr ana for all purposes bv qrantinq last qrade pay with periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of apDointment of the petitioner and all consequential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in support of petitioner's case as put-forth in the present writ petition, within a Deriod of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copv of the order and the respondents hs al I examine and consider the same in accordance to law. in conformitv with ori ciDles of natural iustice bv t petitioner, in terms of orders Dassed bv the SuDreme rovid i n d an ftnn ortrr NI fwo nerc.lne lh aa rln a n Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 2OO6(4) SCC Paqe 1, the iudqment passed in W.P.No.24377 oI 2OO7 dated 08.09.2010 reported in 2011 (1) ALD, Paqe 234 and as I I confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10.06.2O13, and also as per Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated /_: JJ SN, J

19.O9.20L7 Dassed in W,P. No.27217 of 2OO., t reported in 20L8(2 )ALD Daqe 282 and also the Dirr'ision Bench Judqment of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2tl Dassed in I.A.Nos .1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.23 llr57 of 2019 reDo in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 which h;rd a finalitv. within a oerio d of four (O4) weeks fi'rm the date of .recei Dt of a coov of this order dulv takinq into con sideration the obs rvations and t elawi rid down bv the Ao x Court in the various iudo ments ( reli rrr to and extra cted above). and in oa rticu la r, Dara ll:.53 of the f the Apex Court in the case .rf State of iudqment Karnataka v Uma Devi and dul comnt.tnicate the decision to the Detitioner. Howeve r, there ,;hall eno order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending n this Writ Petition, sha ll stand closed. SD/. AHNII::D ABDULLA KHAN SII TANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble MRS JUSTIC\ UREI),\LLI NANDA (For Her Ladyships Kind perusal) 1 . 'l 'l LR Copies;. 2. The.Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Jus ice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 'n95Yf: rl Employment Department, Hvderabad, State of Telanqana' Telangana, Hrmayathnaoar, Hyderabao' Buildrngs, HydSrabad Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad State of lelanoana'

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court a ine Criniipal Secretary, Panchavath raj 5 The Principat secretary, fil;;;;";'Fi'nning D""p"t'ent' Secretariat' 6 ifr; c;rn;iriionu, ot p-inJi'frtnra1 And Rural Emplovment' Govt of 7 The Chief Executive otti""i, l,l'"oCn'l l/alkajgiri District' TS Zilla Prala 8. The l\,4andal Development Officer, Quthbullapur Mandal' Medchal Malkajgiri f . il; ac to sRl cH.GANESH. Advocate [o-PUC] 10.Two ccs ro Gp ron'si-nVrirS-rr r r ii'n""ctlo shr FrinoErp REDDY KArrA, sc FoR MPP zPP [oPUCl 12. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad lOUTl District, TS. courtior the state of Telangana, at Parishad. -Histi PSK. GJP HIGH COURT \ DATED:1610712025 CC TODAY I I ORDER WP.No.31981 of 2021 'f\t \ =:1H () O L \. , ILi 7 C J c) * It .: :l-- *- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS