M.N-arsajah v. 2. The State of Telangana

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behatf of the respondent No.2, and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for TS Zilla Parishads, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The t itioner aooroached the court seekrno D raver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grede post from date of appointment of petitioner by denying to pay legitimate living wages for actually working as full time sweeper for all purposes on par with regularly engaged last grade employees in respondent department as per High power committee report of 1st respondent dt.07.10.1996 in violation of Article 14, L6,21, 39 (d), 43 and 3OO (A) of our Constitution by not 4 SN. J \\'p-15858 2022 implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum W;r es Act,194g and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act,lgT i inspite of abolition of the bonded labour as per Act 1976 i-r treating the petitioner as slave or bonded labour by paying 1>:tance wage of Rs.4,000/- even after continuously working )n full time from nearly four decades as unjust, unfair. illegal and u nconstitu tio na I and prays to call for the off cial records relating to service conditions, seniority and sanc:ioned posts of contingent sweepers last grade posts in ZpplNl ,p schools in our state along with implementation of ligh power Committee report in D.O.Lr.No.415 !31 =stt.V / A2-1, dt.07.10.1996 to direct the respondents herein [o treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in la:;t grade post from the date of initial appointment of petitioner by applying the principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court ir the case of (20L9 (1) scc 516). Pre followed in WP No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Ca:;, rs dated 02_ 05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) and in W I .No. 483 of 2021 dated 05-08-202t, based on principle aid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 201t} Apex Court, dated 23-03-2018 in the case of Netram Sahu I's, State of ch ttisoar and nr. tn ivil Aooeal N .L2 5 4 of 2018, dated 23-03-2018 to reckon contingent services )f petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits on his re :irement by releasing all consequential monetary benefits in tl e last grade post on par with regularly engaged last grade ,l nployees of the respondent departments, along witlr periodical increments, as revised from time to time with ar ears of pay by granting 100 percentage compensation as I er principle SinohVs tate of U.P. 5 SN, J wp l5E5E 2022 C.A.No 44 of laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar and Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles of the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the case of petitioner and pass...".

3. Learn d counsel DOearrnq o behalf f the etitio n v rm affidav it filed in suooort of the Dre nt writ oetition n r wit b for mo R relief a s oraved for in the Dresent writ ition. PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUSSION A D CONCLU SION:- CO

4.L ear Detit oner sub its that the subiect issue in the Dr sent er of this Court, ated is souarel v covefEd bv the anl'ear in half ofth e .2010 a 1 1 AL 23 .24 o re o .A.No.7 2o 2010 - dated 1O.()6.2013 and also order, dated 19.O9. 20L7 o1 7 reoorted in 2O1a(2)A LD No.27217 of2 in W.P. 6 SN, J wp 35858 2022 Paoe 282 anci al so the ord r, dated 21.O4.2( 2O oassed in w.P. o.23O57 ol 2O19 reoo rted in 2O2O(4) A -D Paqe 379.

5. Learned standina counsel aDDea rlno ort behalf of the resoondent No.4 submits that the qrierI rnce of the DCtitioner as out-forth in th e Dresent rit Ptr ition had not been addressed to the resoondents herein a; on date and the fore. the oetitio ner cannof comDla in irr rction on the esoonde nts herein in conside rinq thr qrievance of dh n ron r r e ef as :d for bv the petition er in th oresent Wit oetition cann t t be oranted and no Man amus ca n be issued aoain st th 6 resoondents hereunder as souohtfora nd the iti,2 ner mav be dire edtoD ut-forth the Detitioner's qrte v ance as Dut- _ rf a detailed in the oresent Writ Petition bv wav reDresentationtoth e resDo dents hereil ! and uoon receiot of the said re resentation. the D(t ldents would m u within a rea sonab le oe riod. 6 Le arned counse I aooea rtnq o beha lf of lhe oe tioner does not di so ute the said lssron made rthe learned a 7 SN, J wP_35858_2022 standin o counsel aDDearino on behalf f the resDo No.4

7. The oex Court in the iud ment reDorted in (2O 20) 1 scc (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v Sta of Uttar Pradesh and r at ara held as nd

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of havlng rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated' As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have b€en rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to reg ulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been reg ularized, we direct that their services be treated as a reg ular 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 hlishm nt and the se ices from the rendered bv them ri ht from the dav thev en red ular e w rk- r ed o ua! ifv rno servlce for nuro ose of oen ion. I L' K The ADex Court in the ca o fD h rwa d Dis trict PWD Dail ka re eEm o s 2 e r 8 SN, J wp_35858_2022 thatthe sta te shou ld not keeDaoerson in - :emDorarv or and have t r treat such rvrce for lonq l,era Derso ns as requ lar one. 9; Para No.53 of the of the iudoment of th e Aoex Court tn he St te of Karnataka a d others Vs.Url adevi, dated 10. 04.20 6re rted in( 006) 4SC _ as extracted 1 hereunder:- ( l 2 s 1 9 197 dB "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. here mav be ca sw here lrreoular a ODointments (not illeoal AD ointments) as ex lain inS .V. YaravanaDI,a a a 1L972 (7.) 1 R.N. +) scc 5071 Na ara and referred to in oara15 bove, of g ulv qualified DErsons ln dulv sa ncti ned vaca nt ost ; m iqht h ve be n mad ean the molovees have :ontinued to u,,o kfo i ten vears or more but without the or of trabunals. rrices of such on merits in a Court in the ioht of this rf India, the umentalities a one-time v apoointed, tore in duly rrders of the ' ensure that _:o fill those re 2 be filled uo, be se in gases abovereferred to and in the ..1 - Statq _ Governments and their ins;t_ should take steos to reoularize as- measure, the services of such irrequlari who _have worked for ten vears o,r 1 sanctioned oosts but not under cover ot_ n ses wh ere tem DOrarv emolovees or dailv an ron o h h n h T] l r v !n n rr ust I thi datr:..,. 9 SN, J wp_35858 2022

10. The iudoment of the Aoex Court da

20.12.2024, ed in 2O24 v. Union of I h Nos.12 1 r t2 9in Ani a 4 27 an e hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent' regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. The claim bv the resoondent

13. h he natu ra llants + were not r o s rk nar.farnra d ]rrr f lra Ian 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. l0 SN, J wp-35858 2022

24. The landmark judgment of the Unitec in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporati, F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a p() example from the private sector, illustrat r consequences of misclassifying employr: circumvent providing beneFits. In this Microsoft classified ceftain workers as indep t contiactors, thereby denying them enl benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for thr: Circuit determined that these workers we fact, common-law employees and were enti the same benefits as regular employees. Th: noted that Iarge Corporations have incret adopted the practice of hiring tenr employees or independent contractors as a of avoiding payment of employee benefits, tl increasing their profits. This judgment under the principle that the nature of the performed, rather than the label assigned worker, should determine employment statr the corresponding rights and benefi : hlqhliqhts the iudiciary's role in rect such misclassifications and ensurincl workers receive fair treatment. State n 197 tinent g the )s to case, r loyee Ninth re, in led to Cou rt singly )orary ;cores o the s and .rt

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi I ;upra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor t ntries and ensure appointments adhered to constil r tional principles, it is regrettable that its principl, :S ATE often misinterpreted or misapplied to . This legitimate claims of long serving employee : judgment aimed to distinguish between "i legal" "irregular" rents. appoint r It cateooricallv hetd that emolover s in irreoular aooointm nts, who were enqar ed in dulv sanctioned oosts and had :rved continuouslv for more than ten vears rou ld be considered for reqularization as ar one- time measure. However, the laudable int )nt of the judgment is being subverted when inst t rtions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately rejr:r t the claims of employees, even in cases where their SN, J wp_3 5 85 8_2022 e n ss appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoolication distorts he u v rendered indasDensable services over decades. In light of these considerations, in our 27. opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can ieduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they ire meant to embody. Thas approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to iollow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country' In view of the above discussion and 28. findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orderi passed by the High Court and the Tr-ibunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .lO.2OlB are quashed ; t2 SN. J wp 3 5858 2022 ll. Th reo ula rised e aDDella nts sha ll be _:aken backond utv fo with and - their servlces t with. However. t E ADDellants shall r tct be l niarv Dec benefits./back waqes for the g eriod the have not worked for but I sould be entatled to con inuitv of ser vtces the said oeriod and the would be counted for their _ post- retiral bene ts."

11. Th Judo ent the Dex ourt date( 31.O1.2 o2s orted n 2O25 INSct44i n "SH RIPAL AND ANO ER v. in oartic ular, _ the relevant NAGAR NIGAM. G AZIABAD", Dara Nos.1 5to19 are e racted hereu nder: ls ma nifest "15. rt the Ao ella rt Workmen continuouslv rendered their servtces )ver several sometimes spannanq more thar a decade. lls were no orr: luced in fu ll, to furn i shsu Ev n if ce atn the Emolover's failu ons to do so-allows an adverse under well-establish,e C inf rence labour LU r! Indi labour !aw stror rlv dis fa vo rs peroetual daily-waoe or contractual eng aoem nts in man nt in workers who fulfil 1 after vear _ disoensable, ! e contractor nature. Morallv and leqall on oino municiDal reoutre ments vea ca nnot be dis issed sum marilv as f a oenui cularlv in he wor the ab um n I ( r3 SN, J wp 15858 2022 aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government instiLutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative ernployment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligaAons owed to emp loyees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misu se of enqaq ed for work that is es and inteoral to th fun c abe led "contractua .'' even when their e frt nor arv" Labe s:E mo ovees recu rri no, ntnoofa n institu taon "te mDora rv,, ol ro les II Il l4 SN. J wp_35E58 2022 :es. r h se Such miscl assification deDrrves work: diqnitv, security. and benefits _ :hat reoular re entitled to. desoit, ) oerformino emol oYees ide tica! tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary r mployees are frequently dismissed without cause or r rotice, as seen in the present case. This practice rrr rdermines the principles of natural justice and subje<:l s workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . L::k of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportu " ties for skill development, promotions, or increme.:al pay raises. They remain stagnant in their rol: ;, creating a systemic disparity between them anc their regular counterparts, despite their contrit utions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shiel,J Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively repr :cing one set of exploited workers with another. Tlr s practice not cnly perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obt ( ation to oFfer reg ula r employment, . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefts: Temporary employees are often denied fundanr:ntal benefits such as pension, provident fund, hea lth insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security ;ubjects them and their families to undue hardshigr especially in cases of illness, retirement, c,r unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge rt e Employer,s inability to justify thege abrupt terminations lonsequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wage s with some ) ) l5 SN, J wp_15E58_2022 measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity oF service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes. Act, L947, and that thev were enoaqed in essentaal. perennaa! duties, these workers cannot be unicioal b oe Ud t a . whale com D rit co nsid er t on such co e liance wlth ncerns recruitm ent rules lve th Em lo of st a UI Ii ati I d riqht of workm reqular de fa oh Ve u he le served continuou s vin les Joran extended oeriod. r 18. The imouo ed order exte t thev confi net e AD e a nt Workm en to future ]' dailv -waoe wlthout nttnu itv enoaoe hc ourt. H' o h t6 SN. J lvp 15858 2022 mea ninoful back w qes, rs herebv set a ;ide w th the followinq di rect!ons! rt Workmen's ith Section 6E Disputes Act, orders or services are ant Workmen /ice From the ses, including I. The discontinuation of the Appelll services, effected without compliance v and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrial 1947, is declared illegal. All communications terminating their quashed. In consequence, the Appel shall be treated as continuing in ser date of their termination, for all purp< seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respect ve posts (or posts akin to the duties they previous ly performed) within four weeks from the date of t 1is judgment. Th ir entire Deriodofa sence (fror,r the ate of terminatio n until actual reinst tenr rn counted for contin itv of serV ce and all con ouenti al benefits, suchas en Iorr elioibilitv for oromotions, if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appe[ant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of tt e back wages from the date of their discontinuati, rn until their actual reinstatement. TheRespondent I ;mployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thretr months from the date of their reinstatement. IV Ihe ResDondent Imolover is; dire initratea fair nd transDa nt reo ularizino the ooell nt Workm g n within six months from the daLe of reinstal emen considerinq the fact that they ha,g : perfor med oerennral mu nicioal duties a in tr Derman ent In assessi nq re ula r atron, Dosts. Em lover shall not lmDose ed catio al or ! orocedura I criteria troa ivel r s ch reo ulrements were never aool ed to the ADD llant Work imila rl or to r cess 5 { ( 17 SN, J \Yp_3i85E 2022 reqular emplovees in the past. To the extent n ioned vacanc h ties e or are reoui red, the ResDondent E olover shal! exoedite all necessarv administrative Drocesses to ensure these lonqtime emplovees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waqes contrarv to statutorv and eouitable norms.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The ADe Court in a iudoment reoorted in 2017lL Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaoiit inoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras ( 1)( 2)(3 ). of the said iud me nt observed as u nder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of oppoftunity to all other eligible candidates, shatt be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. ut if dailv waoe (2 aDoo tees are notao n naA aac+c ad hoc or contractual d ainst n ted t,,e a l8 SN, J wp 35858 2022 continuo 'slv, with notional breaks._ bv the State Governm ent or its instr.'umentalities l>r a sufficient lono oeriod i.e. for 7O vearc, such dit_ lv waserc- ad hoc o contfactuaI aooointees shall re entitled to mtnimum of the reoular oav scale without anv Lat work of allowa perennial nature is available and hav.lna worked for such lona oeriad of tirne- a ui able riqht is created in such cateooru of oersons. _'heir claim for tion. if anv- tna have to _ re considered reou lar , seoaratelv in terms of leoallv permiss:1ble scheme, on the a.ss'umotion (3) In the event, a claim is made for mil mum pay scale after more than three years and | rc months of completion of 70 years of continuous v orking, a daity wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sh, 'll be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and twc months.,, f heA

13. in 2O1O 9 SCC 247 betw en: State of Karna kaa td others v ras4:o9r eads as M.L.Kesari and others. in rticu lar, u ! under:

4. The dectston tn tate of Karnata ka v. Umad, ndered on 10.4.2006 ( oorted in 006 4) s C 1). 'n that case, a of this CourI held that appintments made Constitution Bench without following the due process or the n les relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, t€luti rization or re_ engagement nor make their seruice permanen , and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art,< le 226 of the Cons tution should not ordinarily issue directiorl; for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, ir, terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the coutts mu;t be carefut in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wtl \ the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its it stru menta tities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita e the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. t-t is Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual t r a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be |ade permanent unless he had been appointerl in terms of the re,t )vant rules or in 19 SN, J wp 35E5E_2022 adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : h B.N. "53. One aSDect nea.ds frt he clarified- There mew be cases where irreoular apoointments (not illeoal ap,,ointments) as explained in S.V. Naravanapoa f7967 (71 SCR 7281, R.N. Naniundaooa t7972 (7) 4 scc 507 and teferred to in para 75 above. of dulv oualified vacant Dosts m ht have Dersons n dulv sanction been made nd the emolovees have continued to intervention of o rders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestio of reoularization of th services of ht- witho the Sfate Go vernments and merits in the lioht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in the ca ses a bovereferred to and in the lioht of this udoment. In that context, the Union of India. instrumentalitie.'s should take steDs to reoularize as a one-time tieaiu r. the serviees of such irreoularlY tnn;inlaA in duly sanctioned Dosts but not under cover of orders of the courAs or of tribunals an recruitm rrls ere further ensuFe that those vacant sanctI'oned oosts undertaken that reouire to be filled uo, in ses where temoorarv emolovees or dailY waoers are beino must be set in motion now em loved. The within six months from this date, ,... have wo zanl fi;r consid' ja n "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 emptoyee concerned shoutd have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the emptoyee and continued him in seruice voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) rhe appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or 20 SN, J wp_l5858_2022 t a dutv uDon continued against sanctioned posts or whe .e the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minin L m qualifications, the appaintments will be considered to be illegz t. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed q nlifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but hai been selected without undergoing the process of open com. *itive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregulz -. (iii) Umadevi cas !e concerned Governme t or instrum entalitv. to I'! ke steos to reoula rize the services of those irreou l.t trly aooointed emolo es who had served for more fttan ten vears without the benefit or Drote of anv irti erim orderc of 3ure. Umadevi. tst be set in ts decision that such one-time m sune rle.arr}hc from ,n.rli.rn uri l-hin civ (rendered on 70.4.2006). 6. The term 'one-time measuret has to be t tderstood in its proper perspective. This utould normally me. t that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or eact, instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and pre\ are a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who ha ,e been working for more than ten years without the interventt( n of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process ve -ification as to whether they are working against vacant posts tnd possess the requisite qLialification for the post and if so, rsgulzTiTe their services. one-tim ,+s or

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/c; sual employees were still pendtng before Courts. Conset7,,enl1y, several departments and instrumentalities did not cofitt lence the one- time regularization process. On the othe,t hand, some Government departments or instrumentalitie: undertook the one-time exercise excluding several ett oloyees from consideration either on the ground that their ca! s were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such citt,Jmstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered it terms of para 53 of the decision in tJmadevi, will not lose tl eir right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering heir cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should cct sider att daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put il 70 years of 2l SN, J wp_35E5t 2022 continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered. of emolo e orotection of an Dersons on dailv- and then id direction in o ra 53 of 8. The o iect behind the is two- fold. First s to ensure that ose who Umadevi have out in more than ten vears of continu s servrce nterim orderc of coutts or without tribunals. before the date of decision in U devi was in view of rendered- ate considered for reaulariza ,s to ensure thet the their lono service. S deDartme nts/ insttumentali. s do not oeroe ate the e ad- Dract riodicallv hoc/casual for reoulariz them on the orou d that thev have rved for mote t, an ten vears. therebv defeiti,na the constitutional or sta utorv orovisions relatino to recruitment and of the direction s that all aooointme nt. The true e oersons who have worked for more than ten vearc as on 1 u) nA llha da o Drotecti'on of anv in 6^<lc ,r,rcca to be consid' m order of a v court or tribunal. in tion. The fact that entitl. six months of the dec, ion ,n reo ula zation with Umadevi or that suc, exercrse wa undertaken onlv in will not disentitle such reoard to a limi 'ation for reoula r ev, -t,, measure. s. the rioht to be corrs, of t, ,ha for reoula of iaaicitta has no Iih out ca nt zli6ia.= )itaa+iana ,.a.a., u n a a I g. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the 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 22 SN, J wp_35858_2022 law. The only further direction that'needs be 1iven, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Ga( eg should now undertake an exercise within six months, a q neral one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether tt\ re are any daity wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the re ipondents) futfitt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of llmat evi. If they fulfitt them, their services have to be regutarized. Il ;uch an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or ct titting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the penden<1 of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered ,t 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 b: regularised. If the employees who have completed ten yea* senrice do not possess the educational qualifications prescriba for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This app= tt is disposed of accordingly.

14. In the iudoment of the ADEx urt ir Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of puniab reported in (l o13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case c f absorption of Special Police Officers appoanted by the itate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose cli sposa! their services were made avaalable. tt held that t re mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did no render the appellants 'employees' of those Banksr since the appointment was made by the State ancl disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the :reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter 23 SN, J wp_35858_2022 exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual It also refus dto relationship, its action is arbitrary. acceDt the defence that there we no sanction r the State to utili se there w s iustifica on services of la rqe number of eOD e like the aooellants for sanctioned oosts do not f ll from decades. It held that heaven" and that the State has to c ate them bva conscaous ch oice on the basis of some ra onal asse ment of need . Referrin toU made before them were not arb aDooantment was not an'ir been made in accorda nce vi. it h at the aooella rilnch their initial n ou ar'aoooi ntment as t had tutorv Drocedure th the rescribed under the Police A D 1861, nd the State to sa absorbed into the serv basis as, accordinotoi tces of th b e State o0 Derma nent ts were Dure lv t hetra IlOtntmen o temoorarv an not aoainst anv sa nctioned Dosts c ated bv the State was he e cannot become a ! icence for exol tat onbvt he Sta 24 SN, J rvp_35858_2022 its in strumenta lities and neither heG! vernment of Puniab nor thos e Dublac s or Banks can c e such Dract ce inconsi nt with their oblioation I f ncti nt accordance wath the Consti tution.

15. The iudqment of the Aoex Court reoc rted in 2O15 line SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Munici I Coroo tion Reo .b its ( )mmts roner, Nellore District, Andhra pradesh and others, in oarticular oaras 7 andSr eads as u der: v ula ati (7) We find it difficutt to acceot the reasonir4 I adopted bv the High Court. The right of the appeltants to se. t Ihe--aBpellen! flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.lgg: have been in service of the first resDondent n ( nlv Drior to the AL tssua ce of the said G.O. buteven subseouenl to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality b . ng a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Insp,t) of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for. lmost 20 years without regularising the service of the appeltant and continued to extract work from the appeltants. B. In the circumstances, refusing the bener, mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appe d, the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not i, circumstances, the appeal is a owed modifying t appeal by directing that the appellants, serviie,; with effect from the date of their completing continuous service as was laid down by this C Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh ll scc 480. 'of the above tts approached ,stified. In the te order under be regularised 'heir five year turt in District ors. 2009 (8)

16. In markantRa i v State of Bihar reDort:d (20 15) 8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that .Tt e objective 25 SN, J wp_35858_2022 behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure secur tv of emolovm nt of those oersons who had served the State Governm nt and their instrume ntalities for mo than ten vears" This In that case, emolovee was workino for 29 vears. ecrsron aDDroves earlier view exD M.L.Ke ari extracted a bove.

17. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reoo din (20141 7 SCC 223. similar view was taken bv the Suore e Court and it was held as follows vrew o f fhc ?alp?, orrcaI fin n fha "17_-.- relevant contentious issue that the resoondent emolovees ntinued in their service for mote than 7 continuouslv therefore the leoal or, ncrDle laid wn bv af fat* , Umad' (2006)4SCC7 I o a 2006 scc (L&s ) 731 at oara 53 sa arelv rese tca r hu h It with bv this C''ourt. " 'ha e interfe

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha 26 SN, J up 15858_2022 Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda I iistrictr which had been upheld by the Division Ben(:l I of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated 10.10.:023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The iudoment of the Aoex Court ir1 Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Ma harashtra and O "lers reported tn AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 39 9 and inr r rticu I Nos.1 OO and 1O1 held as fol! ws: r oara t ), "100- The High Courts exercising their jur sdiction 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 du -boun dto (erctse such DOvUer, wh re the Govern ent or ao r"rlrli a utho ritv has fai!ed to exercise or has wroat ercised discretion confer uoon a bvas tutr a rule. or aDo licv decision of the Governmen tor as exercised irrelevant consideration, fide. oro tion mala I I c a

101. In all such cases, the High Court must ssue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel t:rformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of t 1e discretion conferred upon the Government or a public;r rthority.,,

20. The Divisio Benc oft his Court in rl s Judqment ,t l1O and g54 ol 2 oL2 while u oholdi nq the Judo ent daterl O8.09.2(,10 27 SN, J wp 358s8_2022 .P.No.24377 t2 07a c.N f observed s under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.12.19A9, LL-O9.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

21. The D vision Bench of this Court in its Judoment dated 19 -o9.2lJL7 DAssed in W.P.No.2721 7ol 2(JL7 in 2O LD 2A a r observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constiiution oi India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the p.oiirions of Act 2 of L994 and G.o. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1gg4, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/reg ula rizatio n 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' 28 SN- J wp_35858_2022 The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscioLi: enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executiv G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, while gi; Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi,s ,:, still, it has not made any exception in favour of State enactments banning reg u la rization/it Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms= 22.4. 1994. do not wh of various State : orders such as ng direction s in 'se (supra). But he States where ,sorption exist. No.212, dated e down the v'idth and the I ra l, does not ssued bv the i an Uma Devi's case (su ora ) therefo e, not I ssible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 ol _ 1994 and G.O. rularization to satisfied the lment in Urna directions r the It is. of th

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, (i fted 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribt nal is set aside and the writ oetition is altowed with the < rection to the re services of cies of Work eir satisfEino dqment in IU se (suo ra). This Drocess mus ! be comoleted of a coo of L t ! :l t e Uma Devi's w tn this o rder."

22. Th Division B nch this Court ln i_ s Judqment da d zL.O4.2020 ssed N I.A.Nos.1 of 2021) in 1 of 2O19 and w.P. No.2 3057 ot 2lJL9 reoo in 2o2tl, 4)ALD 379 at Da ras 45, 48 and Dara 50 observed as J nder: - "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have br en working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum t me-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously rv rrking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till da , . 4A.tt followed the decisio is not kn wnw v the 1st resDon! ent has not (suora). as a Devi's Cas, ninUm n 29 SN, J wp_35858_2022 me exe explained in M.L. Kesari's case (suDra) and undertaken a ,rrra-+i m without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.4.2006 and subject them to a process verification as to whether thev are workinq aoainst vacant Dosts and +ha lici nf d it w rk lifi at r h reoularize their servaces.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the lst respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles :-4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the respondents are darected to reoularize on one-time basis inilirl l'hair tttai at n coov of the order." liat Th t h d f lrrll ha Court

23. resoon ents failed to d scha roe thear dutv in ex mrntnq h tin h ner fo n oetitioner's services, who is workanq as full time sweeoer (I uest to treat the tem orarv and f rther to consider his ?c a nafitia r as requl ar one for a n ranth a lact rsrlc rtost oJJ ilta rtiF I ouroose bv qrantinq last edf rom timeto ical inc ofa DDO ntme nt of the Detitioner. ln rev s Ilav wit DE time f mthed te accordan ce to law. 30

24. This Court o ines th t Detitioner r! consideration of oetitioner's case fo r ra nt 1 f the relief as SN, J wp l5EJ8_2022 I for in the oresen Writ Petition ir view of observations of the Aoe Court in vanot ts i ud ments (re rred to and ext acted a ve) andth 1 view of the tn the Judomerr ts referred to Division Bench of this Cou and extra ed ab ve.

25. Takinq into c nsideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances ,l t the case. b) The submissions made by the lea,r ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearr ned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responder t tios.4 & 5. c) The observations of the Apex Court ir the various judgments (referred to and extracted abo\,, )) and again enlisted below: i)(2020) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) SCC page 396 (aii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SCL797 3l sN, j \{,P_15858_2022 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O SuPreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9'2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated Lg.Og.z0t7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ol 2O17 (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 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above)' S) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Peti on is allowed Aimo f dto Dut-falrth the the oetition er ls the DCt ron r for t 'tz SN, J wp 35858_2022 reou la rization of oetitioner's servrces. and ,a so th claim of the Detitioner to reat the temD orary s 'v es of h Detitioner in the last qrade oost of ntinoen t SweeDer as reoularo ne for all ourDos s bv orantinq l:r it qrade oay riodical increments ised fro the date of aoooin tment of the con seouentiaI benefi s, dulv enclosinq all the documents in supoort of oetitioner,s case a.; out-forth in the oresent writ oetition. within a oeriodofr ref O1) week itirr rer a d all to time from levant , the date of iot of cooy of the o'der and th€ resDon dents sh ll examin e and consider :he same tn es of atu ral iustice bVDrovidinq an oDDortunatv of oerso I al hearinq to conformi with I h etiti n r sof the Su Dreme Court in Uma Devi's case reoorted in 2o(J6,(4.' SCC Paqe 1, the iudome t Dasse 7 dated (}8.o9.2O1O reDorted in 2O11 (1) ALD. Paqr 234 and as .No.782 of 2O1O dated 10 )5.2O13, and in W.P .No.2437 7ot'2 tn w. also as Der Dtvtston

19. 9.20L7 Dasse 201 (2)ALD oaoe 2 ( ench Ju oment of thi court dated in W. P.No.27 217 of 20Qi.' r orted in also theDi l ision Bench 82 and JJ SN. J wP_1585t_2022 s Court d ) Udo ment of tha I.A-Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O 19 tn W.P. No. 23057 ol 2OL9 reoorted in 2O2O(4}ALD oaqe 379 which had attained ated 2L. o4.2O2O oassed in finalitv. within a oeriod of four (O4) weeks from the date of receiot of a coov oft his order, dulv takino into consideration the observation s and the law laid down bv a the Aoex Court in the varlous iudqments (referred to and extracted above). ndino articular, Dara No.53 of the iudqment of tlre Apex egtft in the case of State of Karnataka v. llma Devi and duly communicate the decision to the oetitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs- Miscellaneous petitions, it g!y, pending an this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/.S.MALLI KARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGTSTRAR ./ //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE (For Her Ladyships Kirld pe r) SECTION OFFICER EPALLI NANDA 11 {-R Copies. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretarv. Telanoana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyilerabadl If^lll-"^p:Ll1gl9lv: .Pqnqayqtlraj and. Rurat Emptoyment Department, rerangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telanganb. .l.he Prinopal Secretary, Finanoe and p{anning De[adment, Secrerariat, Hyderabad, State of T6lanoana. I!1D_r:lrictCo!Q$gt,(P^a1-ch.gvaeandChairmanMinimumwases uommittee and District Selection Committee, Karimnaqar Distridt. The Chief Executive Offier, Zilla praja-parishart, kiririnagar District. The Ma ndat pa rishad Oevelopmeni dnrcei, b[o'pffi ;ili Mandat, Karimnagar District. One CC to SRI CH GANESH. Advocate IOpUCt Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, H(1h'Court fbr the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI 9"" 9C to SRt PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR Mppzpp topucl Two CD Cooies To

1. 2.

7. 8. L.t0Wt HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.35858 of 2022 1: : HE SIA ( o, D rJ t 0E[ 2025 * o: ] \,:,. ?'lrF,i (,l * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )