Ue in the case of Pram Singh v. State of U.P

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 standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4.

2. The oetitioner aooroached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare indecision of the respondents in not treating the temporary appointment provided to the petitioner as contingent sweeper on compassionate grounds in the year 1996 as regular compassionate appointment in last grade post/Jr. Assistant ignoring to pay legitimate wages payable to the petitioner as per Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act,1948 and Section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act 1976 R/W Article L4, 16, 21, 39(d), 43 & 300(4) of our Constitution as regular one in last grade post for all purposes by ordering deemed regularization of services of deceased father of the ) SN, J petitioner in last grade post as per G.O. 4s.No.11g, dt 18.08.1999 on the tines of G.O.Ms. \ ).448, dated 25.06.20.16 as highly, illegal, unjus: unfair and violation of the provisions of the said Acts and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the ,etitioner as a regular one in the last grade post by applying the principle laid by the Honourable Suprem: Court in CA. No. 6798 of 2019 dated 0210912019 in th: case of pram Singh Vs State oF U.P. (2019 (1) SCC-)t6) and with further direction to release all the workecl period wages in the last grade time scale benefits w th periodical increment revised from time to time w.e.f . 8.03.1996 to till date with 100% compensation on arr{l rrs of pay as per the principle laid by the Honourable S; preme Court in CA.No.3416-3445 of 2010, dated 19.C; .2019 in the case of Union of India Vs Avatar Chand (2( 19 3 ALD SC 32) by awarding heavy cost and pass..."

3. arned cou nsel aooearino l,ehalf of the zetitioner placinq reliance on the avermen s mad in the affidavit filed in suooort of the oresent writ oetition Dertai ninq in oarticular, to the servicer; rende dbv petitioner with the resoondents herein fc1 more than a decade contends that the oetitio er as el titled or the relief as oraved for in the oresent writ Detit Dn, 6 SN, ,I PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUSSION A D CONCLUSION:- 4 I alr nad coun cal trtrta ran er rrrrt halr.alf of itr a petitaoner submits that the subiect issue in the Dresent case rs sq uarelv covered bv he order of this Court. dated 10 assed i P.N .24377 7re

2011(1) ALD Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A. 0.782 ot 2010, da d 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 1 .o9.20L7 Dassed in w.P. No.272 L7 ol 2Ol7 reoorted in 2O18 2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order dated 2L.O4.2O2O Dassed in W.P.No.2 O57 of 2019 reoo ed in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379. 5, Learned standino couns I aooearino on be alf of the resoonde nt No.4 submits that the oraevance of the oetitioner as out-forth in the Dresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the resDo dents herein as on date and therefore, the DEtationer cannot comDlain i action on the oart of re Dondents herein in considerino the qrievance of the oetitioner and hen ce. the relief as oraved for bv the Detitioner in the oresent Wi Detitaon cannot be oranted and no Mand mus can be issued aqainst the resoondents hereunder as souoht for and the oner mav be l SN, J forth i to Dut-forth the oetition er's qrir ra nce as Dut- t Wri P ition b w rofa detailed n the reores ntation to the resoonde nts herei 1 and uoon receipt of the said representataon, the resol ndents would consrder the same in accordance to li w, within a reasonab le oeriod.

6. Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf ol_ lhe petitioner does not dasoute the said submassion made.! ,v the Iearned standi q counse! ao arinq on behalf of tt e res No.4

7. The Aoex Court in the i ud oment reDort t in (2O2o)1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v S te of Uttar Prade h and others, at Dara 35 hel d as under: "36. There are some of the employees who hz r regularized in spite of having rendered the serv 40 or more years whereas they have been su;rr As they have worked in the work-charged est not against any partrcular project, their servir:r have been regularized under the Government and even as per the decision of this Court Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court decision has laid down that in case services rendered for more than ten years wtthout the ( Court's order, as one-time measure, the s regularized of such employees. In the facts .) those employees who have worked for ten yee should have been regularized. It would not t ( regulate them for consideration of regularizatirr e not been ces for 30- rannuated. rblishment, s ought to nstructions n State of n the said have been )ver of the :rvices be the case. -s or more proper to ras others 8 SN, J 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 bv them rioht f m the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oual ifwino service for DOSe Dension.'1 DU r

8. The A Dex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe EmDlovees Assocaation Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 Iaid orinciole that the Stat should not keeo a Derson i temDorarv or adhoc service for Iono oeriod and have to treat such Dersons as reqular one. P r N f the of th heA x heS ate rnataka an 10.04.2 OO6 reoorted in (2 06)4SCC1is h madevi extracted hereu nder: - 7 cR 128 "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular appoantments (not illeqal apooantments) as explained in S.V. Naravanapoa 1 2 SCC 4O9I and B.N. Naqaraian I1979 (4) SC 5071 and referred to an Dara 15 above, of dulv oualified Dersons tn dulv sanctioned vacant Dosts miqht have been made and the emolovees have contin ued to work for ten vears or more but wit out the Nan un 9 SN, J I 5 l nd their Gover ments 'of tribunals. lntervention of orders of the co rts r The uestion reoular zation of the st rvices of such emDlovees m v have be cons iderer on m rits in the Iiqht of th e DrinciDl s seftledbvthsCou in the cases above referred to and in the lioht of this iudqmen t. In that context, th Uniol of India, Sta ln :ru entalities shou ld take steDs to reo u la rizeasao e-time the serv ices of such irrequl;r 'lv aooointed, worked for ten vears or Tore in dulv ed Dosts but not u nder cover <r order of the sancta courts OI of tribuna ls and should furttrr rr ensure that reoular recruitme ts are und rtakerr to fiil those vacan sanctioned Dosts that r ourre' '1 r be filled uo, tn ca ses whe q now emoloYed. The orocess l1ust set tn ithin six months fro m this dal!..... 10. The iudqment of the Aoex Cou rt date:r | 2 2024 reported in 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Ja,l ro Anita and others v. Union of ndia and others, anc temDora rv emolo es or dailv l_ the relevant Daraora Dh Nos.12. 1 24, 26. 27 and 28 r rre extracted here nder: "12. Despite being labelled as "paf workers," the appellants performed essential tasks on a daily and conti basis over extensive periods, rangan(l over a decade to nearly two decades, engagement was not sporadic or temg in nature, instead, it was recurrent, rr: and akan to the responsibilities tyf associated with sanctioned posts. Mor,( the respondents did not engage any personnel for these tasks durinrl appellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work. -time Their ora ry ;ular, ica I ly over, l0 SN, J

13. The claim bv the resoondents that these were nof reoular oosts lac merit, as n I n was re of the ndame a t n the functioninq of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the 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 benerits. 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 rcta r n s ifacations a rn re nsurrn hts t workers receive fair treatment. SN, J nsider who we "irregular"

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoo entries and ensure appointments adhered to cons;1 itutional principles, it is regrettable that its prin(.i lles are often misinterpreted or misapplied t ) deny legitimate claims of long serving employ€ 3s. This judgment aimed to distinguish betweer "illegal,, appo r tments. ft cateooricallv held that emolo,l:es in rre ular aooointmen en(l rqed in sa nctioned oo had _ served continuouslv for more than ten vearli should for reo u !a razataonas _ t one- time measure, However, the laudable irtent of the judgment is being subverted when in,; itutrons rely on its dicta to ind iscriminatety r€j lct the claims of employees, even in cases wh: .e their appointments are not illegal, but mere ly Iack adherence to procedural formalities. Gor r rnment departments often cite the judgment in Ur ra Devi (supra) to argue that no vested -i lht to regularization exists for temporary err I loyees, judgment's expticit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regulari z ttion is appropriate. This selective aoolication E istorts the iudoment's soirit and ourpose, eff g :tivelv weaDo nizino it ao inst emolovees wlt r have servtces over Iendered decades. indispensable

27. In light of these considerations in our opinion, it is imperative for gov 3 'nment departments to lead by example in provirl ng fair and stable employment. Engaging worker i on a temporary basis for extended periods, er; recially when their roles are integral to the organi; ation's functioning, not only contravenes interr ational labour standards but also exposes the orgar ization to legal challenges and undermines ent lloyee morale. By ensuring fair emplrr /ment practices, government institution!i can reduce the burden of unnecessary litig ation, t2 SN, J prlomote 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 posative precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices an the country. 2A. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .lO.ZOLB are quashed ; rvtces . The aooellants shall be taken on dutv forthwith and their re ularised fo However, the apoellants shal! not be entitled oecuniarv benefits/back waqes for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to contanuity oL services for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their post- retira! benefits."

11. The Judqment of the Apex Cou t dated 31.O1.2025 in2 25 INSC 144 in *SHRIPAL AND ANO r GHAZIABAD" ul r the releva para NosJ5 to 19 are extracted hereunder: *15. manifest that A continuouslv rendered their servlces over severa! vears, sometimes sDa nnino more than a decade. l3 SN. J 5 trA und t v-wa d e or con well-establislr :d Even if certain mu r rolls were not or rduced in fu!! ilure to furnish s;r rch records- the Emolover's des ite di w an adverse inference labour iurisorudence. Indian labour law strcl rolv disfavors tl eroetual rla il e e n qaqe ments in circumstances where the work is rermanent in I :r s who fulfil nature. Mor municioal reouirements ve r after vear onootno cannot be dtsmt ed summarilv a!; d i soensa ble, particularlv in the absence of a qenuile contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would brr appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefin t r "temporary" employment practices as done by a rece r judgement oF this court an Jaggo v. Unaon of India ir the following paragraphs: w n u ( "22. The pervasive misuse of tempora -y employment contracts, as exemplified in this (-, se, reflects a broader systemic issue that acr ersely affects workers' rights and job security. n the private sector, the rise of the gig econom\/ has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benef t;, job security, and fair treatment. Such practi(( s have been criticized for exploiting workers a,r, undermining labour standards. Government institL t ons, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairrr ss 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 de: imental trends observed in the gig economy bttt also sets a concerning precedent that can erode p Jblic trust in govern mental operations. t4 SN, J reoular emolovees.

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 ways: o Misu e of "Tem DOr rw" Labe!s: E nlovees enoaoed for work that is essential - recurrlno. and inteora to the functionino of an institution labelled as "tem rarv" or are often e " even w en the rro les mirr(lr "contra those of Such tion deorives workers of the misclassifi dioniW, securitv, and benefits that reoular emolovees are entitled to, desoite performino 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 l5 SN. ] a deliberate effort to bypass the ct ligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Bene lits: Temporary employees are often denied funda nental benefits such as pension, provident fund, r:alth insurance, and paid leave, even when thei tenure spans decades. This lack of social securil:, subjects them and their families to undue hardslr p, especially in cases of illness, retirement, )r unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminatior: . ConsequenUy, it ordered re-engagement on daily wat( es with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regr,r tably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellan! Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still rr rcertain status. While the High Court recognized the impr,,rtance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizati rn. it failed to afford them continuity of service or meanirr( ful back wages commensurate with the degree of sti t Jtory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, discontinuation of the Appellant Work.r violation oF the most basic labour law prin: established that their services were terrr adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev werl essentaal, oerennial duties. these worls releca of municioal bud he Employer's en stands in ples. Once it is inated without U.P. Ind u stria I enoaqed in :rs cann ot be ted to DerD ual uncertaintv. VJ l ile conc ern s com E lia nce with qet and 16 SN, J recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv oblioations ents. Indeed bureaucratic limitations can not trumo the leqitimate riohts of wo men who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended oeriod.

18. The imo qned order of the Hioh Court, to the extent thev confine the A oella nt Workmen to future dailv-waqe enoaoement without continuitv or meaninoful back waoes, is herebv set aside with the followino 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. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence (from the date of tarrnin=i sha ll lra counted for contanuitv of service and all conseouent al benefits, such as senioritv and elioibilitv for o motions, if anv. rairicirf ement n It nt it 2a+rrr \ u IlL 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 t1 SN, J clear the aforesaid dues within thre : months from the date of their reinstatement. n not im ; directed to IV. The Resoondent E Dlover l init tate a fair and tr nsDa ren I process for reoularizino the Aooellant Work within tx months from the date of reins' ! rtement, dulv g ve performed considerino the fact that thev h oerennial municioal duties akin :o permanent assessinq reqularr ization, the Dosts. In r lucatio nal or Em procedural criteria retroactiu reourre ments were never apt lied Aooellant Workmen or to simi arlv situated reoular emolo es in the Dast. "o the extent that sanctioned vacancies for su C it duties exist or are reouired. the Res ondent moloYer shall expedite all necessarv administril ive orocesses to ensure these lonqtime empl! vees are not i ndefi n i elv retained on daily wa(I )s contrarv to statutorv and uitable norms. !

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appee I s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed."

12. The A ex Cou rn a I in (2O17) 1 Srrn rF m p cou rtCa ses 148- in State of P U n irb and others vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 anr (1)(2)(3). of the said iudqment observed as_ rnder: I its sub-paras "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, thile adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activitit s carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were simita -. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary em, tloyees, who fell 18 SN. J in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Couft in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - aa<l< "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (21 But if dailv waoerc, ad hoc or contractual aooointees are not a inted aoainst reoular tr sefvrces c2.tili.alr6.l al breaks, bv the State continuouslv. with no Government or iE instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 70 vearc, such dailv waoers. ad hoc or conttactuet aDDo tees shall be entitled to minimum of the teoular oav scale without anv allowances on the assumotion that work of oerennial natttre Ls available and havins worked for such lona oeriod of time, an equitable riqht is created in such cateooru of oetsons. Their claim for reoularization. if any. may have to be considered seDaratelv terms of leoallv oerm scheme. v, , (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contradual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudoment of the ADex Court reoorted in 2O1O(9) scc 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others- in Da icular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as u nder:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 reoorted in 2006 G) SCC 1). In that case, a 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 l9 SN, J courts cannot direct their absorption, regLtarization or re- engagement nor make their service permane t, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under A-, icle 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directi) ts for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unle : s the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, it terms of the constitutnnal scheme; and that the courts r|Lst be ca reful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly I th the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its ,nstrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facil,t tte the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 'his Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daity-wage employee does not have a legal right to be nade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the t levant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti,ution. This Court however made one exception to the above )osition and the same is extracted below : h rifie a ade and the em . Naqaraian f 79i't | (41 in the li ht of "53. One asoect needs to be cla . There mav be cases where irreoular aooointmet, ts f not illeoal ADD ointments) as exolained in S.l , Na rava naDDa [7967 (7) SCR 7281. R.N. Naniunc\ooa t7972 (7) SCC 4O9l and B. 5071 and referred to in oara 75 above. ,2 ' dulv aualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant E1 sE mioht have ye continued to work for ten rs or more b Ul without the ' r of tribunals. intervention of o rders of the courts The o uestion of reoularization of be seryices of _ considered on settled bv this Court in t re cases abovere ferred to rnd in the lioht of this iudoment the Union of India, instrumentalities should take steps 1 o redularize as aon e-time measure. the uch irreqularlv rvices of : aooointed. who h ve worked for te vears or more n in dulv sanctioned posts but not l,nder cover of r ls and should ! further ensure that reoular re 'uitmenfs are E undertaken to fill those vacant s, tctioned posts I that reouire to be filled uo, it t ceses whete temoorarv emolo vees or dailv wa ers are beins sc!t in motion rocess mu In that contex the State Governmen The within six months from this date. .... of the courts wem lo f a I 20 SN, J "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any cou rt 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 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. (iii) Umadevi casts a uDon the concerned Government or instrumen talitv. to take steDs to reoularize the services of those ifieaularlv aDDointed emoloyees who had serued for more than ten vears without the b nefit or orotection of anv in terim orders of courts or trib unals- as e dne'ti,,,e m directed that such one-time measute must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision ( rendered on 7O.4.2OO6). 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 all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the interuention 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. re. Untadc

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 instru mentalities did not commence the one- 2t SN, J = time regularization process. On the o t,'r hand, some Government departments or instrumentalitie undertook the one-time exercise excluding several nployees from consideration either on the ground that their ca ies were pending in cou rts or due to sheer oversight. In such (.i cumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Llmadevi, will not tose 'heir right to be considered for regularization, merely becat,: e the one-time exercise was completed without considerinq their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in p.,tz 53 of llmadevi has expired, The one-time exercise should tt nsider all daity- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in lO years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 witha tt availing the protection of any interim orders of cou rts or :ribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in ter ns of para 5j of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sonr, employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmactt vi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as t continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise |ilt be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled o be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so conside-, d. eob ect e said di _ in oara 53 of Umed'evi is two- fold. First is to ensute tlat those who have put in more than ten vears of con! ,nuous sefvrce without the Drotection of anv inteim ord Ers of courts or tribunals, before the d,ate of decision itt Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularizatt tn in v,iew of their lonq service. Second ,s to ensure that the lc/in strumentalitie o 2rDetuate the Dractice of emolo vtnq Dersons on t'ailv-waqe/ad- hoc /casuaI for lono Der icallv regularize them on the around that thev ltve serued for more than ten vears. therebv defeatino thg constitutional Ol statutorv Drovis ions relatino to rc IUitm t and aDDointment. The true effect of the d irec ion is that all oersons who have worked for more than tn vears; as on ,0.4.2006 (the date of decision in llmade! il without the protection of any interim order of anv coutl or tribunal, in vacant Dosts, Dossessino the reou isite orl tlification. are entitled to be considered for reqularizatiotl the emolover has not undertaken sut1t exercise of decision in m n , i 'taken onlv in ercrse limited few. will not (! sentitle such reqularization reoard to a emolovees. the riaht to be considered fo, evi or that such and the t De 'ization wi e 22 SN, J 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 fhe cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of lJmadevi, 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 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 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 tn suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. In the iudqm ent of the Aoex Court i Nihal Sinoh and others v. State of Puniab reDorted in 2013) 14 SCC 55, the Supreme Court consadered 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 23 SN, J appellants 'emptoyees' of those Banl' s since the appointment was made by the State ar d disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that tt e creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadr 3 is a matter exclusavely within the authoraty of the S't rte, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but :hose to make creatin!t contractual appointments of Persons itrary. It ;1 so refused to relationship, its action is arb acce ot thedefence that there were no siI rctioned oosts and o there was iustificat ion for the l! tate to utilise seru! ces of larqe numberofp eoDle like th g aooellants for r not fall from de des. It eld that " sa nctioned oosts lr( aDp a n" and that the State has to cre te hem b ious choice on the basis of some rati( ral assess ent Referrin o to Uma devi. it held tha the aDp ellants were not arbitrarilv chost r.t heir in tial oular'aD DOlr ment as it had intment was no an'irre re the t d L D made in accordance with the statu .orv Droce du re nder the Police Act. 1861. _ rnd the State otbeh eard to av that thev areno entitled to be rvtces of the Stat€ _ on oermanent t abso rbed in 24 SN, J 'l h n men m r c n bv the State. It was held that the iudoment n Umadeva cannot b come a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instru mentalities and either the Gove ment of rB can con b nor a c Dractice i nconsistent with t eir oblioation to f nction in accordance with the Constitution. Th ment of A ex in2 ine S t7 7 between B. ivasulu alC I ation R Di Andhr adesh an Daras 7 and 8 reads a u nder: m T] m h Cou Th e G.O. No.212 (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reasoninq adooted bv the rioht of the aDDell,ants to seek reou rization 22.4.1 a heen in service of he first resDOndentno t onl t rior fo fhc lssuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to e issue of G.O. till today. rhe 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 appeltants 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 effect from the date of their compteting their five year 25 SN. J continuous service as was laid down by thi:; Coutt in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Sing,-t & Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480.

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar rep! rted (2015 )8 scc 265. the Suoreme Court held that 'the objective behind the exception carved out in this cas() was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmer ts, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensutr: securitv of emDlovment of those Dersons who had ser ved the State Government and thelr instrumentalities for nore than ten vears". In that case, emolovee was workinr lor 29 vears. This decision aDDroves earlier view :xpressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.

17. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Pras;1 I reoorted in (2OL4) 7 SCC 223, similar view was I aken by the SuDreme Court and it was held as follows : t "47.... In view of the cateoorical findint of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respotllent emplovees have continued in t, eir service for mon >_ than 7O vears continuouslv therefore. the leoal orinciol, laid down bv this Court in Umadev,i case (State of Karn, y'aka v Umadevi (2OO6) 4 SCC 7 : 20O6 SCC (L&SI 73) at 14'ra 53 souarelv apolies to the Drcsent cases, The Divisio t Bench of the Hiqh Court has fjqhtly heH that t e resoondent emolovees are entitled for the relief. the ame cannot be intertered with by this Court." I s 26 SN, J

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2-2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 ol 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 ol 2023 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2O24.

19. The i doment of the Aoex Cou rt in Hari Mandi r Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others re orted rishna n R2 'I r meC 69 an a r Nos .1OO and 1O1 held asfollows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Afticle 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 exercase such v rnment r h re the n on conferred uoon it bv a a oolicv decision of the Government consid ration. d iscretion mala tute, or a rule, or fide, or on irrelevant r has exe

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 Sh'. J

20. The Division Bench of this Court in _ ats Judqment dated 1O.O 62013 Dassed in W.A .Nos.782 oi 2O1O and 854 of 2O1 while uohol ino the Judo ent dal:r:d 2010 passed in W.P .No.24377 of 2OO 7 and C.C. I o.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material o I services of the similarly placed persons who a1r Courts were regularized. The appella nt-Corpo r various office orders/circulars dated 20.12.19 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for casual/contract employees, It is also to be see r T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice or workman. As can be seen from the factu,t cases on hand, engaging the respondents for continuous period of time on casual basis is rr. labour practice attracting the provisions of S(( ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relyinr of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responc to regularization as directed in the impugner learned single Judge considered all the aspect; detail, in the proper perspective, which, in ou- does not warrant interference in these appeals.'' record that the rroached the law rtion also issued 39, 11.09.1992, eg ularization of that Section 25- :y any employer scenario of the ;uch a long and ,thing but unfa ir tion 25-T of the ln the decisions 3nts are e n titled orders, as the of the matter in considered view

21. The Divi Bench of this Court in ts Judqment dated 19.O9.2OL7 Dassed in W.P.No.27217 of 2 L7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 at Dara 1l and para 18 observed as under:- '16. it is trite that the law declared by the i rpreme Court is binding throughout the country under Art( e 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that I y the ttme the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. tYs. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Suprerr r Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization an(l absorption oF f persons, who entered service through back dr:rs by givrng a 28 SN, J go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, 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 reg u la rization/absorption exist. re- Act 2 ol 7.994 1OO and G O. Ms. No.212 dated The 22.4.L9 94. do not whittle down the width a d the la Ba r 53 the taCata m nt rth a +r-ia-f.rl.r, m T unrr\ s ctions b a Devi d men t for +ha to take shelter und eI Act 2 0f 199 and G.O, resoonde Ms- No.212 - dated 22.4.1994. to denv reoula zation to ad mittedlv, sati fied the oners. who have (suora). Devi's ca 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and ilra resDon ents to consi er reoularisation of the servi ces of m nti with th ermi<cih ion t r+ ic rrrrii ilr6 s d n hem sub n fWo Uma Devi's case (suora). This orocess must be omDleted within two months from the date of receiDt of a coov of this order."

22. The Division Bench of thas Court in its Judoment dated 2 7,.O4.2O2O oa ed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2020 tn 1 of 2019 and w. P.No.23057 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2o(4) ALD oaoe 379 at ras 45. 48 and D ra a 5O observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petrtioners 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 continuous r any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till working without late. h w tn ma Devi's 4 tndent has not followed the deciston rSe (suora) as U exDl ained in M.L, Kesari's case (suD ra) a du dertak ena one-time exercrse of Dreo rino th da il wa rten (1O) vears d Tribunals as on 1() .4.20O6 a nd sub s erification sto whether v€r( ant Dosts and DOS ess reo uisite o alificati ons for the p osts, and if so. reoularize their Services. h them to a Dro thev are workino aoaln I n

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowe:r ; the impugned orders dated- 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st res rondent rejecting the cases of petitioner.s for regularization ol services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitraq, and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 27 of the Constitutiir r of India; the respondents are directed to reoutarize or! One-time basis the petitioners 'aoes from the ev shall not be (erci se shall be e of receiDt of e h coov of the ord

23. This Court ooin es that in the Dres;. Int case, the n ents f iled u examinan the reouest of tition for leq r larization of oetitioner's services, who is workino as full_ time sweeper and further to consid r his serv ice of the oetitioner ln the last o rade D st of fu ll time uest to reat he temoor I ula r n b orantinq last as r (Ira e Dav w th Derl o ical ment revi se from timeto 30 SN, J time from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law.

24. ner is entitled consideration of oetitioner's case for orant of the relief as rt awarl fnr r in +lta.rraca nl Wri i Petition in vie zrf iho observations of the ADex (referred to and extracted urt in various iudoments bove) and the vaew of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq into consideratiqn: 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 No.4. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scc Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc.144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 3l SN, J (v) (2017) l scC 148 (vi) 2O1o(9)scc247 (vii) (2o13) 14SCc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ol 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (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 ol 2O;L ) and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment datel O8.O9.201O passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.t o.48 of 2OOB (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ol 2O:t z (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in :, of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ol9 (referred to and extra cted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the preser t order. 32 SN. J The Writ Petition is al owed. the oetitioner is h h !m f the ioner fo reoularization of Detataoner's sen tces and also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temDorarv services of the 6 etitaon ran t h e+ of Swaaltai 2c ranrrl:r for all ourooses bv qrantinq Iast orade oav with oeriodical n m m time fro e date aDDointment of the petiti ner and all conseouential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in cr r ri6rlit f riatit n r'c aaca 6rr+- forth in the resen t writ oetitaon, within a oera of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of coov of the order and the resDondents shall examine and consider the same in rdance to law, in conformitv with ori cioles of natural iustice bv orovidinq an opDortunitv of oersonal hearino to the Detitioner, in terms of orders passed bv the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reoorted in 2OO6(4) SCC Paqe 1, the iudoment oassed in W-P-No.243 77 ot2 oO7 dated 04.09.2()10 reDOrted in 2O1 ( 1 I ALD- Paoe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O620r3, tnIl also as oer Division Bench Judoment of this Court dated 33 SN, J I m 2018 LDD t20 7r eDorte

19.O 9.2017 oassed in W.P.No. 27217 242 and also the I) vision Bench tO passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1of 2O19 in W.p.No.l3O57 of 2O19 reDorted in 2020(41 LD oaoe 379 riod of four (O4) weeks _'rom the date hich_ had attained

1.o4. o receiot of a c o oYO f this order dul l cons ideration the observation and th larar lai dow bv the Aoex Cou rt in the va rious iudqments (r fer extracted a bove ). and an Da rticular iudqmentof urt in t the Aoex Kar ataka v. Uma Devi and du to the petitioner. However, ara _ No.53 of the cas of State of cotr r nunicate the ther,: shall be no d to and v ! , u ord rasto sts. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendincl in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REC SD/.A.TI S. GOWRI SHANKAR ISTRAR REGISTFUTR { , -' \ \1ECTION OFFICER \ ,-- One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS. JUSTTCE SURE f,.ALLt NANDA (For Her Ladyship's Kind perusal) -l

1. 11 L.R. Copies 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, I\.4inistry of Law. Justice and Company Affairs. New Dethr Buildings, Hydi:rabad

3. The Secretary, Telanqana Advocates Association Library, High Court 4 Il: _Princiqat Sgcrelary, panchayathraj Depa(men.. State of Telangana, I elangana Secretariat. Hyderabad. \ 5 The Princioat Secretary, Finance & Planning Department' Stale of Telangana' Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

6. The District Collector (Panchayats) & Ctrairman of - Committee and District Minimuri Wages Committee' District. District Suryapet, Selection Su ryapet T.TheChiefExecutiveOfficer,ZillaPrajaParishad,SuryapetDistrict' 8. One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 10 One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, S'C' forZPP [OPUC] 1 1 Two CD CoPies MP BS )'fi HIGH COURT DA-l ED:1610712025 ,?- 3K iHE S i- ,.,,1,< G )' C, :.) l:s :'q ..\-', r, 2 .l 0Ell Zrj2l c), .,1 t ,7 _j: ./1 { ( ORDER WP.No 28915 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE \^'RIT PETITION WII HOUT COSTS CC TODAY @r ( b u