India vs Detitioner with the res pondents h erei

Order

Heard Sri Ch,Ganesh, learned counsel i rppearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistanl Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on br: talf of the respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Pradeep t eddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP and MPP i ppearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2, The oetitioner aoproached the Court sri :kinq oraver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more pa I (;ularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the , ction of the Respondents in not treating the services of I tl_itioner as regular one in last grade post from date of ap I ) ntment of petitioner by denying to pay legitimate livirrrl wages for actually working as full time sweeper for all pur I )ses on par with regularly engaged last grade employees ir respondent department as per High power committee rc )ort of 1,, respondent dt,07.10.1996 in violation of Article ..+, t6,21, 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of our Constitution by not ir plementing Section 13 & 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 arr provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 inspite of ab(, tion of the bonded labour as per Act 1976 in treating the : :titioner as slave or bonded labour by paying pittance wage ot 11s.4,000/- even after continuously working on full time front nearly four decades as unjust, unfair, illegal and unconstjt rtional and prays to call for the offlcial records relatinc t.o service conditions, seniority and sanctioned posts oi ,:ontingent sweepers last grade posts in ZPp/Mpp schools I r our state 4 SN,J !vp_18875_2022 along with implementation of High power Committee report in D.O.1r.No.41513/Estt.V/A2_1, jt.oz.ro.rs9O io oir".t tf," respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as one in tast grade post from tf,u J"[u of initial 1e_eut.a1 a.ppointment of petirioner by applying tne princijte taid by the 'prJm Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh ;i itate or u.e. !291,s !1) scc s16), foilowed in wp r,,ro-. :'3e:6 Ii'zorr Batch Cases dared 02_05_-^2018 (2020 fql-i[i itg rS (DB) "na and in W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated Oi_Oe-2021, based on principle laid by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in-C-q. No. 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23_03_2ore in the c;; of Nerram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Anr. in Civif appeaf No. 1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-20i8 to reckon .ortingUil".vices of petitioner for computation of qualifying ,".u1i" grant of pension. gratuity and other retirem6nt be"ef,,ts on his ::l.:-T:it by reteasing ail consequentiat monetary benefits in rne tast grade post on par with regularly engaged last grade employees of the responaent SeparimeriG] atong witlr periodical increments, as revised from time to time with arrears 9f pgy by granting 100o/o compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 34L6 _3445 of ZOiO A A;tch Cases dated 1e-02-201e (ALD 3 of 201e sc Jzi-uv'Jplryins tne aforesaid principles oF the Hon,ble npex Couii u riier Articte 141. of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in tfre case of petitioner and pass such order or orders with c;sts in the interest of justice.....,' -to -oi - o ehalf of n laa ce th av me m en wrt e n Detitioner with the res pondents h erei s n for mor tha a e h t in th w & t-.-- 5 SN,J \!p,18875 t022 PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCU SSIO NANDIONCLUxIO N : -

4. Learned counsel apDearinq on be] alf of the petitioner submits that the subiect issue in _ the Dresent case is squarelv cover bv the order of this I lourt, dated

08.09.2010 oassed in W.P.No.24377 oJ 2OO1' reoorted in

2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W. \.No.782 of 201O, dated 10.06.2013 and also order, daterl 19.09.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.272t7 ot 2Ol7 reoorted in :1 )18 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order. dated 21,O4.2O 2 O passed in W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OI9 reoorted in 2020(4) At I ) Paqe 379.

5. Learned standinq counsel aDDearinq on p ehalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the qrieverr rce of the oetitioner as put-forth in the oresent Writ Peti ion had not been addressed to the resoondents herein as rn date and therefore, the petitioner cannot comola ln lna r tion on the Dart of resDondents herein in considerino the r rievance of the petitioner al!(Lhence, the relief as Draye( for by the petitioner nt Wit oetition cannol : be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aqainst the ! espondents hereunder as souqht for and theDe itio rr lr mav be t II 6 SN,J wp_38875_2022 ut t directedtoo rth the Detitioner s flevance as Dut- fo rthinth e Dresent Writ Petition bv wav ofade ailed reD sentation to the resDo nden ts herein receiDt of the said reDresentati on, the soondents would e sam ccord n reasonabte Oeriod,

6. Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the etation er t dis u h id submissi r n c uns n beh tf f res onden No.4

7. The Ao ex Court in the iud ment reDorted in (2O2O) 1 s inP m State t tta r Pr d n others, at Dara 3 6 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having 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 regularlzed 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 been 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 7 SN.J \vp 1887j 2022 regulate them for consideration of regularizatir r as others have been regularized, we direct that their ;ervices be treated as a regular one. However, it is ma( r clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues c F difference in wages had they been continued in serv c -. regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. Ti:y shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they hgye retired .services from the reqular establishment and tt r-! y entered rendered bv them right from the day thg the work-charqed establishment shall be ( ounted as qualifvinq servicejo r DurDose of oension."

8. The ADex Court i the case of Dharwa( I Dastrict PWD Literate Daily Waqe Emplovees Associatiorr Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 199O(2) SCC Paqe 39ri laid orinciole that the State should not keeD a Derson in temoor arv or adhoc service for lonq oeriod and have t f treat such Dersons as reqular one. g Pa rA No. 3of 5 f he of the irr.ldn, ent rtf t t e Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Unradevi, dated

10.04.2006 reDorted in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:- t mc "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. _ here ma e nt _ (not illeoal aascq wh p re irrarrrrlar annarln aDpointments) as exolained in S.V. \arav naoDa 11967 (1) SCR 128 1. R.N. Naniundao a f19 2 (r) SCC 4091 and B.N Naoaraian I soTt and referred to in Dara 15 above of ( ulv ouali fied Dersons in dulv sanctioned vaca nt DOS ; miqht have t vees have :ontin dto been made and t e emnl o 4) SC 79 19 I I IfffiXrftxm*m 8 E* SN.J \vp_38875_2022 u n m re ulari atio n .In h wo rk tor orm rehu twi rh out t e ten VEA h inte entionofo rde of the courts or of tribu na ls. T the s rvices of uch em lovees mav have to be co nsidered on merits in the lioht of the ori nci oles ettled bv this Court in the ca s abovereferred to andint he liqht of this fn ia th t con s h ew edf sanctioned o sts but not under cover of orders of the oroft ribu na ls and sho ld furthe r ensure that reoular recr itments are un ertaken to fill those VA nt sanct oned oo ts that require to be filled UD, tn c ses wher e temDo arv emD lovees o r dailv wa qers are erno no emolov ed. The rocess must be set in motion within six months from th is date. .... IN r a h UI n h hI

10. e ud 24 reDo din2 24 LawS uit(SC) 12O9 in Jaqqo Anita and others v. Uni noffn dia and o hers, and the rel vant urt d d 20.L2 ra hN .L2 1 24 2 and 2 extrac hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as ',part-time workersr" 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 9 S N,J lvp 1887i 202 2 appellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work. E ! The claim b the resDonden i; that 13. 'it. as these were not re ular Dosts lacks m the lature of the work performed v the apoellants was oerennial and fundame rtal to the functioninq of the offices. The rr :urring nature of these duties necessitates rf how classification as regular posts, irrespective their initial engagements were labelled. It s a lso noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing ( ' the same tasks to private agencies aft appellants' termination demonstrates the i l ere nt need for these services. This act of outso rrcing, which effectively replaced one set of workt: s with another further underscores that the vr rrk in question was neither temporary nor occasicr al. ,l :

24. The landmark judgment of the Unite( State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporali rn [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a p)tinent example from the private sector, illustratir g the consequences of misclassifying employ r rs to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as indegrr ndent contractors, thereby denying them enr tloyee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for th: Ninth Circuit determined that these workers w( re, in fact, common-law employees and were enti led to the same benefits as regular employees. Th. (lourt noted that large Corporations have incre r singly adopted the practice oF hlring ten) )orary employees or independent contractors as a neans of avoiding payment of employee benefits, 1l ereby increasing their profits. This judgment under;cores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned o the worker, should determine employment stat t s and the corresponding rights and benefi -: . It hiohliohts the ud icia rv's role in rect fvanq I 10 u wo rkers ifica ns an ir treatm ent. SN.,I \p_3E87j 2022 a sa nctione DOSTS a nd had

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between ',illegal,, "irreg ular" appointments. It cateooric llv held that molovee irrequl ar aDooint ments, who were enoaqed in served conti nuouslv for more than ten vears should bec nsidered for reoula rization as a one- time measure, However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to ind iscrim inately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their 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 sel ctive aoolication d istorts a onizin rr if rrr ain rendered indisoensable decades. se effe IV ees wh servaces n harra atrl rt

27. In light of these considerations, in our 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 EW SN.J \p_18875 2022 morale. By ensuring fair emplo /ment practices, government institutionl; can reduce the burden of unnecessary litig ation, promote job security, and uphol( the principles of justice and fairness th:r they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and ;:ts a positive precedent for the private se: :or to follow, thereby contributing to the ( veral! betterment of labour practices in the crl rntry. 2A. In view of the above discussic r and findings, the appeals are allowed. The iml ugned orders passed by the High Court and the -- ibunal are set aside and the original application is: lowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.t0.2018 are quashed; The aooell nts shall be caken back on dutv forthwith and reoularased fort with. servt ces However. the aoDellants shall ot be entitled nia ry Dec aqes for the benefits/back thev have not worked for but uou ld be entitled to continuitv of s( :l vrces nd the same wou ld be counted for their post- the said oeriod a nv n ! I \ I iral ben fi

11. The Judoment of the Apex Court dateg 31.O1 .2025 reDorted in 2025 INSC 144 in "S RIPAL ANI ANOT HER v. t NAGAR N IGAM, GHAZIABAD". iN oarticular. the relevant Dara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: .r SN,.I wp-38875 2027 A !lan serv ces 12 t '15. s on nu usl h s ometim er's Ev nif e thEE Dlov m I s failu re to fu rn ish su ch o- s a a u di eca e. record s- a ve s n r h M n a men ell- d I -wa ctrcums nces whe n tur isf or th workis Derm anent in d tfi! r m m r cannot be dis issed marilv as disoen sa ble. Darticular vint he absence ofao enuin e contractor aoreeme t. 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 fndia in the following pa ragraphs: r "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 employmeni arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices 'have criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Goveinment institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public \ I3 SN,J wp_388',75 2027 sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the de1 r mental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode I rblic trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality : rat temporary employees/ pafticularly in governmr: lt institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exgr :itation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or ;:asonal needs, they have increasingly become a meci anism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-t:'m obligations owed to employees. These practic: i manifest in several ways: I l "ter labelled as and benefits that qular emDlo 3es. a Misuse of "TemDorarv" Labell: E lo ees enoaoed for work that is essent ! rl, recurrinq, and inteqral to the functioninq of rn institution are often |rqrarY" or "contractual," even when their roles mlrror those of Such m iscla ssification deorives work ers of the diqnitv, securi emolovees are entitled to. desoi !: performino identical tasks. . Arbitra ry Termination: Temporary frequently dismissed without cause or in the present case. This practice rr principles of natural justice and subje,: state of constant insecurity, regardles,: or duration of their service. . La: Prog ression : Temporary employee ,: themselves excluded from opportur development, promotions, or incremer They remain stagnant in their rol€ systemic disparity between them ar( counterparts, despite their contr I equally sig nifica nt. rmployees are rotice, as seen rdermines the s workers to a of the quality k of Career often find ities for skill tal pay raises. s, creating a their regular utions being t4 -FrEz-- \ sN.i sp 38875 2022 . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions rncreasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. f'ni, pri.iil" not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate eFFort to bypass the obligation to offer reg ular employment. . Denial oF Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as. pension, provident fund, health insurance, gnd paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack ot social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, eipecially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were Ieft 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. 17. In light of these Em ployer's discontinuation oF the stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and the U.P. Industria I 6N oF thev weree nqaoed tn Disputes Act, L947, and that considerations, the Appellant Workmen E t5 SN,J wp 38875-2022 budoet and essen ial, oerennia I dutie s the e worl( :rs cannot be releoa ted to oero tual uncerta intv. V, rile con cern s of municioal com liance with recruitment rul es merit conside ation, uc concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutrl oblioat rons entitlemen Indee bu reaucratic limitations cannot trumD he leoitamate rio hts of workmen who have s rved c g ntinuouslv in de facto reqular rol es for an extended I1:riod. neo te eouitable E _l a

18. The imouoned order of the Hiqh :ourt. to the extent thev confi ne the Aooella t Worli nen to future da itv-waoe eno ement wi out ': )n r meaninqful back waoes, is herebv set ; side with the a llowin ctions: nt Workmen's rith Section 6E Disputes Act, orders or services are a nt Workmen vice from the lses, including I. The discontinuation of the Appel . services, effected without compliance ' and Section 6N oF the U.P. Industri;r 1"947, is declared illegal. Atl communications terminating their quashed. In consequence, the App(r shall be treated as continuing in so date ot their termination, for all pur I seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shali reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respec ive posts (or posts akin to the duties they previou ;ly performed) within four weeks from the date of his judgment. Their entire eriod of absenc (fro n the date of termination until actual rei staterr ent) shall be coun d for contin u itv of serr ice and all conseoue ntial benefits, suc elio ibilitv for o motions, if anv. en tort {t-m* t6 Y SN.J Np 38875_2022 III. 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 clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. Th ond n m lo r ia! m al du in itiate a fair and tra nsDa rent process for reoula rizino the DDellant Workmen wit in six mont s from the date of reanstatement dulv consi erino the fact that thev have oerformed In assessrnq re u la rizatio oosts. n Emo lover shall not i mDose ed ucationa I or criteria retroactivelv if Droced ural ever ao lied to the reo uirements were Aooellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reoular emolovee s in the oast. To the extent or are required. the Re oondent Emo lo er shall exoedite all necessarv administrativ e D cesses to ens re these Ionotime emolovees are not indefini telv retained on dailv waoes co trarv to statuto uties xt ned va es for and eouitab le 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 ADex Court in a iu d o ment reDorted in (2OL7l L Suore e Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab a nd others Ja ln hando h a 4andi u ( Ll(2i( 3 of the said iudomen ohser ed as under: ) t SN,J \p_ 18875 2022 "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, v, upon the above controversy had concluded, employees were not entitled to the minimum ot scale, mereiy for the reason, that the activiti? daily-wagers and regular employees were simtl,l however, made two exceptions. Temporary enp in either of the two exceptions, were held ent t the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regula - exceptions recorded by the full bench of the lt. impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - ,ile adjudicating lhat temporary he regular pay- ; carried on by . The full bench toyees, who fell ed to wages at ?mployees. The lh Court in the 'tual appointee )ppointed after >n fairness and ble candidates, oay scale from "( 1 ) A daily wager, ad hoc or contr,t against the regular sanctioned posts, it undergorng a selection process based u-: equality of opportunity to all other elitl shall be entitled to minimum of the regul,t the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waoers. ad hoc r contractual appointees are not appointed a, ,inst reoular Dosts and their servtct sanction are availed continuouslv, with notional breaks.- bv the State ties ,rasu fficient Govern ment or its instrumen lono period i.e. for 7O vears, such d,1 lv waqers. ad hoc or contractual appointees shall _ te entit mlntmum of the reoular Dav scale wit.'hout anv r,., tat work of perennial nature available and hav to worked for , Deriod of time an eoui able riqht is such lo created in such categorv of persons, _.'heir claim for requla r tion, if anv. mav have to ,e considered seDara telv in terms of Iesallv nces on the a ssumDtion 'missi rle scheme. ! 7 ,_ t- (3) In the event, a claim is made for mii -num pay scale after more than three years and |o months of completion of 10 years of continuous t trking, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sl i ll be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and tw ) months.,,

13. The iudqment of the Apex Court reportq lin2 10(9) scc 2 ate of Karn taka e rrd others v between: t8 SN,J wp 18875 2022 M.L.l(esari and others, in oarticula r, aras 4 o 9 readsas u n der: at cas ). In th

0.4.2006 (reoo rted in 2006 G )SCC1

4. The ectston in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered e, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relatingto appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarity issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instru menta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court futthir held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : ,n ffed to in ents (not Nara s to be cla fied. There av be illesal "s3. one asDect n cases where irreoular aoooin R7 796 R.Ar. scc 4O9l and B.N. Naoaraian I7979 (4) SC,c 5071 ra 75 above. of dulv oualified Derso s in dulv sanctioned vaca t oosts mio t have ade and the emolovees have con ued to work for ten vears or more b t withou ntion of orders of e courts or of trib unals. The ouestion of reoula tion of the servi' sof such emolovee.'s mav have to be conside in the li,oht of the DrtncrD les settled b in the ca es above ferred to and in the lioht Cou of this iudoment. In that con text. the Un, the State c vernmen India, instr mentali shoul,d take steos to reaula t, ze as u s ch ir, e l ::--f-- _f-r'3 I r9 SN,J wp 38875 2022 o have orked for tet vearsot more ADDOi nted, ind ulv sanctioned n sts but not _ tnder cover of ord,ers of the couri< or of tribur ,ts and sh uld further ens re that reoular rec ruitments are t vacant sa ,rctioned posts undertaken that Lequire to be filled UD, ,tl ca tem orarv emoloveesorda wel 'ers are beino now emDloved, The process must l\ ' set in mo tion months from this date ! "5. It is evident from the above that ther: is an exception to the general principles against 'regularizat,c 1' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfi er, (i) The employee concerned should have work,: I for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benei or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. ln ,ther words, the State Government or its instrumentality shou,c have emptoyed the employee and continued him in servict. toluntarilv and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) fhe appointment of such employee shout,, not be iltegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments a e not made or continued against sanctioned posts or wh:.e the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minirn: T qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illeg;. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed q,itlifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but h t I been selected with.out undergoing the process of open contp,titive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregul,t . (iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uD 1'e concerned Governmentor ta ke steas to reou rize the seruice's of those trredu,a rlv aooointed emDlovees without the =rim orders of -time mea ;_ tre. Umadevi. I ,sf be set the afe : tf its decision ho had served for more ll an ten nefit or Dtotection of d t motion with,n stx m onths or tribunals. asao instrumen litv. nv in e l e

70. oo6

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be t,t clerstood in its proper perspective. This would normally mear that after the decision in Umadevi, each depaftment or eac,) instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prec )re a list of a'll 20 SN,J wp_38875_2022 casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working foy. more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they ale working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several da ily-wage/ad_ hoc/casual employees tlere still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one_ time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentatities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several emptoyees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in tlmadevi, witt not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one_time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in pZra 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise shoutd consider all daily_ 'of wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without avaiting the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals.7f 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 lJmadevi, ihe'employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise witt be concluded only when all the employees who are entitted to be considered in terms of Para 53 of umadevi, are so considered. iect- behind e said d irection in oara 53of a. Um devi is two- fold. First is to en ure that those who ut I n wit, out the Dro n of an vrnte mo rders of cou rts or tribunals, before the date of dec,ston tn Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularizat ntn ilv-wao e /ad- riodi' nd is to ensure that Dlo YTNO n s service. rs of r m n e e d s Dra ceo c casual u - 2t SN,J wp_18875 2022 s E o cruitment and tion is that alt .en vears as on oersons who have worked for more than 7O.4.2O06 fthe date of decision in ltmad vil without the orotection of anv interim order of anv coe t or tribunal. in 'alification, are r. The fact that h exercise of e ecrsron tn rtaken onlv,n f isentitle such ulariza tion e-ti. e reoard to a li,mited few. will n m lo measure. rms o the a ove di n tion tn ! tasa ! ; ! l ,se ! I k ,-

9. These appeals have been pending for mor= than four years after the decision in umadevi. The Appeltant ,Zita panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases ot respondents of regularization within six months of the decisit 1 in umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has cases of respondents shoutd be considered ir law. The only further direction that needs be r Umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, Ga ) undertake an exercise within six months, a (( regularization exercise, to find out whether tie wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zile so whether such employees (includiig the rt,: tne requtrements mentioned in para 53 of llma; them, their services have to be regutarized. If : has already been undertaken by ijnoring or or of respondents 7 to 3 because'of1he pindency then their cases shall have to be considered tr the said one time exercise within three months say that if the respondents do not futfi the Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not,) the employees who have completed ten year s possess t h e d u ca t i o n a I q u a t i fi ca t i o n s p restr i b e : the time of their appointment, they may b t regularization in suitable lower posts. This'app,) accordingly. -e trrected that the lccordance with iven, in view of rg should now neral one- time 'e are any daily )anchayat and if oondents) fu lfill :vi. If they fulfill uch an exercise itting the cases of these cases, .ontinuation of [t is needless to 'equirements of t regularised. If service do not for the post, at considered for tt is disposed of 22 SN,J \\rp 38815 2027

14. In the i udo ent of the Aoex Court i Nihal Sinqh ;rlharc rr st2+a ofP nirh re orted in 2013 L4 caa 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposa! their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter 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 relationshap, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to acceDt the defence that there were no sanctioned Dosts and so there was iustifica ion for the State to utilise services of laroe number of oeoole Iike the appellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a consci ous choice on the basis of some rationa! assessment --r- SN.J \r.p:l8ll75 2022 of need. Referrlnqto Um adevi, it held that :hea oella nts before them were not arbitra chosel. ir ini a ot m ntwas o n r r' b en ln a co an d r e li e 1 1 inl! lent as it had t l:or e ! rd the State roc du D ca n b d a t a bsorbed into the s rvices oft he b srs as, ac thei r aD DOi it, e Ot,)n tl b tate E n permanent tm nl wereD ure ly t m a n t tn t bv the Sta te. c nn tb comea li t a h n an to ro tsc rea .i d a h m rr: an m devi for exDloi tation u instrume ntalitiesa nd neithe rB n a practice lnconsistent with th tro blio to e c t v eG( !he State and l,ernment of c I tanue such a ( i] fun tonin u n u m n of h A

5. Th scc Onl ine SC l7 97 between B.Sr ntv sulu ndother Nell led in2 o1s r

9. a to r) nmissioner, ell re Di as7 8r h r d s a s nI,a d a 24 SN,J wp 38815 2022 We find i difficult to acceDt he reasonino adoo d bv the (7) ourt The riaht of the aDDellants to seek reoularization Hioh flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. Thea DDellant have been in service of the first resDond,ent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but e ven subseo uent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. 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 continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480. 16, In Amar nt Rai v State f Bihar reDorted (2015) I scc 265, the Suorem ecourt held that 'The objective 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 securitv of m lo men rsons wh served h Gov ernment and their instrumentalities for more than ten vea rs". In that case, emDlovee was workinq for 29 vears. decisi s earli rew ex r M.L.Kesari ex racted above. \ \ ---=. ::E.-.':1=.\e.- 25 SN,J wp 38875 202 2

17. In tat of ar ha dv al P sa( e 2 L4 7 2 3 Su rem Cou a el as rken bv the

7.. c, o I relevan contentious rssue that th n th Court in Uma (2 06) 4 scc 7 AD lies to the Dre Hish C,ourt has e se 15tate a 2006 Scc (L &s) 73) a D' o Th Di htlv held that nt ases o Ka r u n I ,f fact on the nt 1 ,n em lovees 'ha 7O v'ears laid down bv rka v Umadevi ,a 3 ua lv Bench of the nd' nt me cannot be r. t ! IJ w w I r

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2,2O22 passed in W.p.No.27602 of 2019 whict pertaans to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshtr i Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Natgonda Di: trict, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.10.20 l3 and also confirmed by the order of Apex : ourt dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.32847 ot 2f,24. h en of

19. A Ma ndir Tru tv.state ofM aha in AIR 2o2OSU Dre e Cou h o oo nd 1O1 el lt w n ; ari Krishna ras tra a nd rt 396 ( th rs reDo in oa icu la r Dara

2.O SN.J wp 38875_2022 "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exe rcis o has fail d to exercise or has wronqlv xercised d iscretio n conferred upon t bv a statute, or a ru le, or a oolicv decis ion of the Government or has exercised fide, or on i releva nt such discretion mala consideration. heG v rnm nt or r r

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."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 1O. 05.2013 Dassed in W.A.Nos.7 82 ol 20 1O and 854 ot 2OL2 while uoholdi no the Judome nt dated O8.O9 .2010 f 2008 oassed in W.P.No.24 77 of 2OO7 a nd C.C.No.48 observed as 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 appella nt-Co rporation also issued various office orders/circu lars dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 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 basls 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 \ ':':; '1: -:i'- ' 21 SN.J \vP :l8ti7j 202 2 detail, in the proper perspective, which, in ou - considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. The Division Bench of this Court in - ts Judoment dated 19.O9.2017 oassed in W.P.No.27 j L7 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2O18(2)A D oaqe 282 at Dara 1l and Dara 18 observed as under:- " 16. It is trite that the law declared by the ; rpreme Court is e 141 of the binding throughout the country under Art( Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that t y the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), wa s rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1991, were in existence. The Suprerr i Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization anrl absorption oF f persons/ who entered service through back c< ors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for ppointments to public posts, consciously ordered one-time a bsorptio n/ reg u la rization of those, who wer: working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given irections in th is regard to all the State Governments and als{) Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be consciou; of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executi.r rorders such as rg directions in G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, white givi Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's <i se (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of 1 re States where State enactments banning regu la rization/: t sorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 of I 994 10O and G.O. Ms . No.212, dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the 4 idth and the iudoment in Maniul, Bashini's case (su T ra), does not lower the trai ecto I of the directions siued bv the Srrnrerne Cou rt tn Para 53 .lfa s iudo men t_ in Uma Devi's case (suora). It is, therefore. not Dernl ssible for the resDondents to take helter under Act 2 o.' 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, to denv rt:, rularization to the oetitioners, who have, admittedlv,_ satisfied the crateria laid down in Para No,53 of the iu c qment in Uma Devi's case (suora ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, : )led 27.6.2077, in OA No.1442 of 2O14, on the file of the Trit,r nal is set aside t t 28 SN.J \\p 38875_2022 and the wrlt n res onden e n the criteri t on ts allowed with he direction to the nsider reoular isatio nofth e services of ofw rk v t o.53 ofthei domentin m laid down rn Para a ncr e d r this order."

22. The Div ision Bench o this Cou rt in its Judom ent dat d 2L.O4.2O2O oa sed in I.A.Nos-1 of 20 2Oin1of 2019 an W.P.N 230s7 t2 1 din2 o 4 D a 379 at Daras 45.48 a nd Dara O obse edasu nder: - "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) year-s of service by now. They have been given minimum time_scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. in M. esari' 4A known whv the 1st It is n resDond ent has not ed the decision in Uma Devi's case (suora), as one-time exercise of reDarrno the Iist of dailv waqe emolo vees who had worked for more than ten [ 10) vears ith ut the in rve ntaon of theC urts an d Tri bu na ls as on erifica t o as to 10.4. 2OO6 and subiect them whether thev are workino aoainst vac nt Dosts and ua li o e trr n reou larize their servtces. AD ces nd if erta k e o f

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2OL9 passed by the 1st respondent rele-ting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one_ time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India; the resDondents are directe d to reou larize on one-time basis oetitioners' servtces from the date eachoft he Detitioners w b relief The said exercise sh il be r ent tled to an monet en .B ial da I a 1 .f 29 SN,J wp 38875 202? coov of th e order." within two ( 2 weeks from the da!: of receipt of

23. This Court oDrnes that in the Dres( nt case, resDo ndents failed to discharqe their dutv in examrni of th oetitioner' etation or re who is workinq as full time sweeDer larization of t and further to consider his reouest treat I he te DOra rv t rade or servlce of the oetitio ner in the las e r as re(I ular one for all ouro oses b\ qrantinq last qrade Dav with eriodical increment reviseri from time to time from the date of aooointment f the oetitioner of full ) accordance to law.

24. This urt opines that Detition er entitl ed for consid eration of oetitione r's ca se for qrant r)'the r lief as praved for in the present Writ Petition irr view of the observataons of the Aoex Court in va rto sl udome ( referred to and extracted above) and thr view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Jud qmel1s referred to L d extracted v

25. Takinq into co tion:- , 30 SN,J wp_3E675 2022 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2020) l SCC (L&S) (ia) 1990(2) SCC pase 396 (iii) 2O2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l sCc 148 (vi) 2O1O(9) Scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 sccz23 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 39G9 (xiii) (20o6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 202O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.tgZ of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), l 3l SN,J wp 38875_202 2 e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2Ot 7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot ZO2O in . of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extr. cted above). S) In the light of discussion and conclusior as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the preser t order. the _ oetitioner is The Writ Petition is allowe put-forth the claim of directe the retitioner reoularization of oetitioner' s servtces and lso th claim of the Detitione r to treat the temDorarv s ( rvices of the petitio e for al! ourposes bv qrantinq last orade pav 4 ith oeriodical increments revised from time to time frot r rade post of Sweeper s reqular n the last e date aDDointment of suDport of Petitioner s writ petition wit lna dateofr eceiDto CO f the Detitioner an closinq all the relevant all :on eq uentia I r locuments in se as Dut-forth il the Dresent riod of one fO1) r eek from the of t eorder and thg respondents -..fl 32 SN.J \\p _388'.7 5 _2112 2 shall exa ine and con slder the same in acco rdance to law, in conformitv with orin IDles of natural iustice bv c f oersonal hearin q to the orovidino an oDoortunitv in terms of orders Dassed bv the Supreme petitioner Uma D vi' or ed in 2O Pa e1 the iudqment passed in W.P.No.24377 2OO7 dated O8.O9.2O1O reoorted in 2O11 (1) ALD. Pa e 234 and as confirmed in .A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O6.2O13. and er Division B n h e of this Cour L9.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.N 0.27217 ot 2OO7 reoorted in also the Division Bench 2O18(2)ALD Daoe 2A2 an Judoment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.l oJ 2O2O in 1 of 20 19 in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reDorted in 2o 20( 4 ALD Daqe 379 which had attained 't finalitv. w thin a oen od of four (04) weeks from the date of receiDt of a coov of t is order, dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the ADexCourt in the variou s iudoments (referred to and extracted above '1. and in o rticular, oara No.53 of the iudqment of the Aoex Court in the case of State of teka v. UmeD evi and d ul vco m mu nl cate the 33 SN.] lvP 18875 2022 decision to the oetitioner. However, e shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin I in this Writ Petitlon, shall stand closed iD/-A. JAYASREE IS; ANT REGISTRAR -i =CrlOn OFFICER I Pr\ -Ll NANDA //TRUE COPY// To One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS. JUSTTCE S (For Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal 'I . 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, IVlinistry of Larar, JL,: trce and Company I Affairs, New Delhi. I I g t If,g. Secretary, .Telangana Advocates Associatic,n Lrl rary, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

4. The Principal Secretary, Education Department. St: er of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat. Hyderabad

5. The Princip3l Secretary, Finance and planning De: rrtment, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

6. The District Collector and Chairman for Selection Oomrl ttee and Mlinimum Wages Committee, Jangoan District. 7 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Jangoar 8. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Devaruppa : District, TS listrict. Mandal, Jangoan

9. One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate tOpUCl '10. Two CCs to GP for Services-|. High Court for ther StzLt ) of Tetangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] '1 1. One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, S C. for ;:pp 3 t/pp tOpUCl 12. Two CD Copies BS w MP I IGH COURT DATE l):05/08/2025 .(v { tir: .) ,' (-) t ,.)-t * 1 ', "',,'i ,)i,)l z t f.. ORDER WP.No.ii 1875 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WfIIT PETITION WIT}I CUT COSTS 6 b