The High Court · 2025

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.1062/ 20178' dated 2517t2017 ' pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Counsel for the ResPondents: S.PRADEEP KUMAR GP FOR SERVICES.I The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp_28221-_2079 NB( J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONNo.2822I of2019 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, precisely, as per the writ affidavit, is that he was appointed as a Typist, in a Full-Time contingent employee capacity under the control of respondent-Horticulture & Sericulture Department, in the year 1989. The Govemment has issued GOMs.No.2l2, Finance & Planning Department, dated,22.04.1994 wherein orders have been issued to regularise the services of temporary/daily wage,NMR/consolidated pay employees, who completed five years of service as of 25.1 1.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that except that he fell short olfulfilling the condition of five years of service by 25.11.1993, he futfilled all the other condirions for regularisation. It is also his case that even as per the Hon'ble Supreme court judgment in state of Karnataka vs. umadevir, rendered in the year 2006, wherein the Supreme court directed to regularise the services of the temporary employees who completed l0 years of service within a period of six months, the petitioner is entitled for regularisation, but his services have not been regularised till today.

2. Heard Mr. S. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and the leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-I. perused the record. 3. Lear,ed counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit. He would further contend that the petitioner has put in more than three decades ofservice, but his regularisation request was rejected vide impugned Proceedings dated,25.07.2017, and, the proceedings were served I (2006) 4 scc 1 2 wp-28221 2079 N8K,I on the petitioner on 31.07 .2019. Leamed counsel contends that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, filed WP No'35544 of 2017 wherein this courl directed to regularise his services in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme courl in umadevi (supra), but his regularisation has not been done yet.

4.LeamedGovernmentPleader,basedonthecounteraffidavit'would essentially contend that as per GOMs.N o.212, an incumbent has to completc five years full time service to claim regularisation, and the petitioner did not fulfit that condition. It is further contended that wP No. 35544 0f 201 7 was disposed of in light of earlier common orders passed in WP Nos 45949 and 46007 of 2018 dated2l .02.2019, and in compliance of the orders passed by this cou( in wP No. 35544 of 2017, the respondent authorities passed Speakingordersinformingthepetitionerthatitisnotpossibletoregularise his services. It is also contended that as against the orders in WPNo'45949 of 201 8 and batch. the Govemment filed a Speciat Leave Petition No. 13813 of 2018 before the t1on,ble Supreme court, and the Supremc court granted the respondent-Deparlment time up to 3l J22024 to implement the impugnedorders,andtheGovemmentfiledaReviewPetitionvideDiary No. 5 8936 of 2024 dated 05. I 2.20 24 and the said review petition is pend ing betbre the Hon'ble SuPreme Couft.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme courl in Jaggo vs. Union of tndia2, wherein the apex Court, by refen'ing to the judgment in Umadevi (supra), held as follows:

26. White the judgment in (Jmadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice o;f-backdoor entries and ensure aPpoinlments ,2024 tNsc 1034 wp_24221_2O!9 NBK, J adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misipplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between ,,illegal " and ,,irregular " ap,pointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be consideredfor regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subvertecl when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims o;f employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities- Government departments often cite the iudgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooiing the jttdgment's explicit aclcnowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment,s spirit arul purpose, i;ffect ive ly weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providingfair 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 "rpori, the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the bur.den of unnecessaty litigation, p_romote job security, and uphold rhe principles ofjustice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for t.he private sector tofollow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been rendering seruices in the respondent-Department since 1989 i.e., for over three decades. In light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra), and { ( 4 wp_2A221-2019 NBK, ] :$* considering the facts of the present case, the respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders regularising the services ofthe petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Furlher, keeping in view the settled law that the service rendered prior to regularisation shalt be taken into account for pension and retirement benefits, the respondent-Depaltment shall count the past services, prior to regularisation, for the purpose of pension and retirement benefits' However' the petitioner shall not claim retrospective monetary beneltts on account of his order. lt is made clear that the regularisation of the petitioner shall be subject to result of the review petition stated to be pending betbre the Hon' ble Suprerne Cout1. 1 . Accordingly, the impugned Proceedings dated' 25 '07 '201 7 are set aside, and the writ petition is allowed to the extent as directed above. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed' That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' on this - WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIET;'dAV OT APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SD/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// , I' SECTT I(\? tiru orrtceR To Hvderabad, State of Telanqana. '1 . The Principal Secretary, Horticulture and Siri Culture Department' Secretariat' , iil; cffi;itiio;"ioi n6rii"i''rii"" and Director.of Siri culture' Road No 72 ' P;;".i;;; rl"gat, l'l"rr \,Airter Tank, Jubilee Hills'.Hvderabad 3. The District Horricutture ""i'"Si..iJjiiilri-Otri"er, Kothaoudem District. 4 A;;'tti;Snr s pnnorEP KUMAR, Advocate [oPUC] ;. iil; dd"i"-ciloc se-nvrceb-r, High court for the state of Telangana, at kttt.'6grdem, Bhadradri Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies 6 PSK. BS Q$- HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 t I ORDER WP.No.28221 of 2019 lr: i'r: 'r ', c;. I 14 IIJE zrE \<\ ,i \g-.j99 .), ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A- \h + >\