IrI Chinna Narsaiah v. The State of Telangana

Order

Heard Sri Ch Ganesh, learned counsel , ppearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Governmelr pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearinr; on behalf of the respondent No.1, learned Government: pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on br: ralf of the respondent No.2, learned Government )leader for Education, appearing on behalf of the resl) )ndent No.3 and Sri, K. Pradeep Reddy, learned Standinrl Counsel for ZPP MPP, appearing on behalf of the respond_. rt No.4. 2, The oetitioner approached the Court sr1 :kinq oraver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particulrr y one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare : )e action of the Respondents in not treating the s: vices of petitioner as regular one in last grade post f lm date oF appointment of petitioner by denying to pay legitimate living wages for actually working a; full time sweeper for all purposes on par with regularlr, .:ngaged last grade employees in respondent departme rt as per 4 SN, J \\'p_3E751 2022 High power committee report of 1st respondent dt.07.10.1996 in violation of Article L4, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act,194B and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act,lg76 inspite of abolition of the bonded labour as per Act 1976 in treating ttle petitioner as slave or bonded labour by paying pittance wage of Rs.4,000/- even after continuously working on full time from nearly four decades as unjust. unfair, illegal and unconstitutlona I and prays to call for the official records relating service conditions, seniority and sanctioned posts of last grade posts in ZPP/MPP schools along with implementation of High Power Committee report in D.O.1r.No.41513/Estt'V/A2-1, dt.07.10.1996 to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of petitioner by applying the principle Iaid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated O2-0s-2018 (2020 (4) Al-D 379 rS (DB) followed bv decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated 05-08-2021 based on principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. L254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23-03-2018 In the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil 5 SN. J \rp, i 8754 2022 Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-201t to reckon contingent services of petitioner for conr ,utation of qualifying service to grant of pension, ! ltuity and other retirement beneFits on his ret I )ment by releasing all consequential monetary bene "its in the last grade post on par with regularly e I yaged last grade employees of the respondent departnr rnts, along with periodical increments, as revised fr,).n time to time with arrears of pay by granting 00percent compensation as per principle laid by Apex I turt in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C. ,.No. 3416 -3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated I )-02-ZOt9 (ALD 3 of 20t9 SC 32) by apptying th: aforesaid principles of the Honble Apex Court under ,,rticle 141 of our Constitution by this Honble Court in 1te case of petitioner and pass.... .. " 3 Learned counse D Deaflno on [rr rhalf of the titioner a tn perta in affidavit tn pa rticu la r reli nce on h averm n made in the filed in suDoort of the oresent writ oetitio n to the services rendered bv Detitioner with the resoon dents herein for more tha na decade contend s that the petition errser itled for the relief as oraved for in the o resent writ petitir)L PERUSED THE REC ORD:- 6 SN, I 38'754 2022 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

4. Learned c lt n se ADDEafln o on behalf of the etitio rTt I h the sub ect issue in n case is souarelv covered bv he order of this Court, dated o .2010 assed in W.P.N .24 77 of 2OO7 r o

2011(1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010, dated 1 .06.2013 and also order, da ed 19.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.N o.27217 of 2OL7 reported in 2O 18 t2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4. 2020 oassed in W.P.No.2 O57 of 2O19 repor d in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned sta nd ln o counsel a nl)ea r no on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the qrievance of the itioner as r h in the res n Writ Petit been addressed to th resoondents herein as on date and f herefo re tho n t itione r e n^f com lain i nrrt n non fha oart of resoondents herein in consid erino the qraev a nce of the Det itioner and hen ce, the relief as oraved for bv the Detiti oner in the Dresent Wit oetition c nnot be qr a nted and no Mandamus ca n be issued aqai nst the res ndents der as directed to out-forth t uo h t for ndt titioner ma vhe he De titioner's rievance as D ut 7 SN, J wp 38751_2022 forth in the oresent Writ Petition by wat' of a detailed re D resentation to the respondents hereil ndu on receiot of h e said representation, the resoc ndents w td consid r the same in accordan to l; w, within a reasonable oeriod.

6. Learned counsel aooearino on behalf ol :he petition er does not dispute the said submission made !.v the learned standin q counsel aooearino on behalf of t I e_reSpe_BdCnE No.4.

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment reoortrl I in (2O2O )1 scc ( L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar' Pradesh d others, at para 36 held a s under: "36. There are some of the employees who har regularized in spite of having rendered the ser,r 40 or more years whereas they have been sutr As they have worked in the work-charged es, not against any particular project, their servire have been regularized under the Government and even as per the decision of this Courl Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court decision has laid down that in case services rendered for more than ten years without the : Court's order, as one-time measure, the s regularized of such employees. In the facts O those employees who have worked for ten ye l should have been regularized. It would not be regulate them for consideration of regularrzatir r have been regularized, we direct that their s : not been :es for 30- 'annuated. blishment, ; ought to r stru ction s r State of r the sa id rave been :ver of the ,rvices be the case, s oT more proper to as others : rv ices be 8 SN, J !!p 38754_2022 treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have etired reoular estab lishment and the serv tces from th rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered blishme work-cha h il t q ua lifY nq service for DurDose of Dension." 8 A ex cou in the case of Dharwad Dis rict PWD Literat Dailv Waqe Ernolovees Association Vs. State of Ka rnata ka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid orin ciDle that the State should not keeo a De rson in temDorarv or adhoc service for lonq oeri od and have to treat suc h Derso s as reoular one. of the iudqm ent of the ADex Court

9. Para No.53 of th in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi . dated 10.04.2006 reoo rted in (2 06) 4 SC 1 is extra cted hereu nder:- 1 "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There av be (not cases where irreqular aDDOintments illeoal ADDO intments) as explained in S.V. Narava ADDA L967 1 507 c and referred to in para 15 above, of dulv qualafied Dersons in dulv sanctioned va ca nt oosts miq ht have been made and the emplovees have contin ued to th e work for ten vears or more but without s an B.N. t{a ara a R.N. Na un a L979 128 72 1 9 s\, J \\,p_18?54 2022 a r zation of ke steDs to interventi on of orders of the courts or of trib unals. The o u es ton ofreou r rices of s uch emolo vees mav ha ve to be con idered on merits in ht of the orincioles settled bv thi Cou rt in the the lio cases a boverefe rred to and i the I ioht of this iudqment. In that context. he Union rf dia the State G vernments and their insl 1ul0ClltaItles ularize as - .a one-time should measure. the services of such irreoular' ave worked for ten vea rs or l rore i sanctioned posts but not under cover ol- rrders of the courts or of tribuna ls and shoul fu rth r1. ensure that reo u lar recruitme nts are unde aken o fi h ose vaca n sa nction ed osts that re uire t< be filled uo. tn ca wa ers are bernq now em D loved. The D rocess rr rst be set in moti on within six months from this date s where tem orarv emolovees or I a )

10. The iudq nt of the Aoex Court datecl 20.L2.2024, reDorted in 2024 LawSuit( sc ) L2 o9inl others v, Un ion of India and others. and he rel eva nt pa raq ra ph Nos.12, 13 24, 26. 27 and 28 ir e extracted ao o Ani ! hereu nde r: "12. Despite being labelled as ,,part:. workers," the appellants performed I essential tasks on a daily and contir.r basis over extensive periods, ranging over a decade to nearly two decades. engagement was not sporadic or temp( in nature, instead, it was recurrent, re,l and akin to the responsibilities typ i associated with. sanctioned posts. Morr:, the respondents did not engage any ( personnel for these tasks during appellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work. l ese .tous 'rom 'hei r ra ry rlar, :ally rVef/ l0 SN. J rvp 38754 _2022

13. The claim bv the respondents that these were not reqular D osts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the ll n w s erennial and fund m n the functioninq of the offices. The recurrin s nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial erlgagements were labelled. It is also note\,vorthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature oF the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliqhts the iudiciarv's role rectifvino such misclassific ations a nd en urinq that worker receive fa ir treatment. SN. J wp 18754,2022 su pra ) ,lntries r h n tn m n n

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi sought to curtail the practice of backdoot and ensure appointments adhered to consti principles, it is regrettable that its princi : often misinterpreted or misapplied t l legitimate claims of long serving employe t judgment aimed to distingulsh between "irregular" appoin' It cateooricallv held that emplovs -rtio n a I es are s. This illegal" ilents. es--i!! wh were en E Sre-d-il - igvcd _ itrgqld i one- :ent of 1:utions ct the 'l their 'y lack a Devi tht to oyees r :xplicit rtion is istorts :tivelv ,_-har{c continuouslv for more tha n ten vears be considered for reou arization as time measure. However, the laudable ir the judgment is being subverted when inst rely on its dicta to ind iscrim inately reir claims of employees, even in cases wh€'l appointments are not illegal, but mer: adherence to procedural formalities. Gov: departments often cite the judgment in U - (supra) to argue that no vested ri regularization exists for temporary emf overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regulari.l appropriate. This selective application g the iudqment's sDirit and puroose, eff, weaoonizinq it aqainst emolovees wJ1 rendered indispensable services decades. judgment's

27. In light of these considerations, opinion, it is imperative for gov€ departments to lead by example in provi: and stable employment. Engaging work€ temporary basis for extended periods, es when their roles are integral to the orgar i Functioning, not only contravenes inte- labour standards but also exposes the org,r to legal challenges and undermines ern morale. By ensuring fair emplr practices, government institutions reduce the burden of unnecessary liti r rn our -nment ng fair .; on a recia lly :a tio n's ational ization ployee l atio n, t2 sN, l rvp 38754 2022 promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside ancl the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .70.2018 are quashed; The a ooellants shall be . forthwith and thetr back o reOU arised t()rthwirh servtce s However, the a D Della nts shall not be entitled Decu nlarv benefits/back waqes for the Deriod the have not worked for but woul d beentitled to co ntin u itv of servaces for the said period and the same their Dost- would be counted for nefits."

11. The Judqment of the Aoex Court dated 31.O1.20 25 ted in 2O 25 rNSC 144 in'SHRIP AL AN D ANOTHER V. NAG AR NIGAM , GHAZI ABAD", iN DA icu la r, the relevant N .15 1 are xtracte manifest that the A n er inuouslv rendere their servic ooella nt Work men over several ore th nadec ade. som e rmes soan nrnq *15. 13 SN, J wp 33154_2022 I :d Even if certain mu ster rolls were not Dt' rduced in full, the Em D lover's fa ilu re to furnish s r reco rds- d esp ite directions to do so-allow:; an adverse infe rence well-establis labour i u riso ru dence. Indian labo ur law stro isfavo rs DerDetual d ailv-waqe or co ntractual er ,aqem ents in circumstances where the work ermanent in nature. Morallv and leoallv, worker s who fulfil onqornq municipal reouiremen ts vea r after vear can not be dismissed summ a rilv as _. disoensable, particular! v in the absence of a oenui re contractor reemen At this juncture, it would b€r appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinit, .,temporary,, employment practices as done by a recerr judgement of this court an Jaggo v. Union of India r the following paragraphs: t ts I "22. The pervasive misuse of temporl contracts, as exempliFied in this r t broader systemic issue that ddv workers' rights and job security. . sector, the rise of the gig econom) increase in preca rio us employment often characterized by lack of benefit and fair treatment. Such practic: criticized for exploiting workers an labour standards. Government institut with upholding the principles of fairne bear an even greater responsibility exploitative employment practices. sector entities engage in misuse contracts, it not only mirrors the dei r observed in the gig economy bul concerning precedent that can erode lr governmental operations. 'y employment se, reflects a )rsely affects r the private has led to an ,l rra ngements, , job secu rity, ,; have been undermining rlns. entrusted ,;s and ju stice, r.o avoid such When public of temporary mental trends a lso sets a . blic trust in t4 SN, J \Lp 38754_2022

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted fortns of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: I tasks em D lovees. o Mis use of "Te moorarv" Labels: Emp Iovees enqaq ed for work that is es entiat, recu rfl no, and inteoral to the fun ction ino of an institut ron labell ed as "temDorarv" or "contract ual." even when their roles mirror o ular those o Su ch misclassi cation deDrtves workers of 5ecu ritv. and benefits that reoular emplovees are entitled to, desDite De rforminq . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. ' Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill developn'tent, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally sig n ifica nt. . Using Outsourcing as a Shleld: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates l5 SN, J \|p 387j4 2022 a deliberate eFfort to bypass the obl lation to offer regular em ployment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benel employees are often denied funda r such as pension, provident fund, hr: and paid leave, even when their decades. This lack of social securitl and their families to undue hardshig cases of illness, retirement, a circu msta nces. " :s: Temporary ental benefits : lth insu rance, ten u re spa ns subjects them especially in - u n fo reseen

16. The High Court did acknowledge t inability to justify these abrupt termination:; it ordered re-engagement on daily wa(l measure of parity in minimum pay. Regret perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant left in a marginally improved yet still u ^ While the High Court recognized the impl work and hrnted at eventual regularizati: afford them continuity of service or meanin l commensurate with the degree oF sta _ evident on record. re Em ployer's Consequently, ,,s with some ,ably, this only 'Vorkmen were .:erta in status. .tance of their r, it failed to ul back wages tory violation L7. ln light of these considerations, t discontinuation of the Appellant Workrr violation of the most basic labour law princ i established that their services were terrr adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev werS essential, perennial duties, these worll releqated to De Detual uncertaintv. \ of municioal 'e Employer's :ln stands in )les. Once it is -rated without .J. P. Ind ustria I enqaqed in rrs cannot be lile co n cern s com12.iance with oet and r t_ I6 SN, J up tE751 2022 neq ate recru itm e ntr ules merit consi deration, such con do not absolve the EmDlov er of statu torv obliqa tion s Ind eed, bu rea ucratic limitations cannot trurnD the I eqit imate riqhts of workmen who h ave ser ed conti nuousl n de facto requl ar roles for an extended period. entitlemen s. eouitable

18. The imorrqned order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent thev confine the Aooellant Work en to future da ilv-waqe meanln ful fol wtn enqa oement witho ut continuitv ish reb s I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected v,rithout compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment' e sh ilb n un il ac ual t nd al f ntia I benefits, such as sen torttv and conseou tre eriod fab nce fro in statem nti uit of servic r mo ions if an r 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 untll their t1 SN, J \tp 3E7 54 2022 actual reinstatement. The Respondent :mployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thre r months From the date of their reinstatement. irected assess ino IV. The Resoondent Emolover i: initiate a fa ir and transparenl; Droce ss for re o u la rizin o the Aooellant Workr r z!!-Etxin_s!x month sfr om the date of reinst ? lc!nc!!L_d_uly considerinq the fact that thev h:L e_-peffe_IMg! perennial municioal d uties a kin I ) Derman ent posts. In reo u la r' zatjs&___lhc shall not rcationa I or !m r!oseer J Em nlover procedural criteria retroactivr: v reoutrements were neve I Aooel la nt Workmen or to stmr reo ular emo lo ees in the I r-llc--extclt ast. ! d uties exist hat san or are reouired. the Respondent ty notover shalt ex Dedite all n ecessa rv administra ve rocesses to ensu these lonqtime €mPl6,r gg5 are DOt indefinitelv retain ed on dailv waq s contrarv to able norm ned vac ies for and e t

19. In view of the above, ihe appeal(s, workmen are allowed, whereas the appeali Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,' filed by the ) filed by the L2. The Aoex Court in a iudqment reDorte in (2 17) 1 Suo reme Court Cases 148. in State of Puni :r ) and others vs Ja iit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and ils sub-paras (1)( )(3). of the sa icl udomen observ as r.r rder: "54 "The Futl Bench of the High Court, wt le adjudicating upon the above controversy had conctuded, 1at temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of t ,e regutar pay_ scale, merely for Lhe reason, that the activiti€: caried on by daily-wagers and regular emptoyees were simila. The full bench IE SN, J \\p 18754 2022 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 l-iigh Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:' "(1) A daity wager, ad hoc or co,ntractual appointee against the regular sancttoned posts/'if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equatity of opportrntty to all other eligible candidates, shatt be entitted to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waaers, ad oc or contr''actual a DDoin tees are not aooointed adainst sanctioned oosts and th eir services are ava iled continuouslv. with notional breaks, bv the State vernmen or its instrume ntalities for a sufficient lons per od i.e. for 7O vears. such dailv wa oers, ad hoc or contractual a DDointees hall be entitled to mintmum of the reqular pav scale wit out anv llowan e oerennial nature is availa le and havino worked for such lono oeriod of time, an eouitable rioht is reated i tnav have to be c nsidered requ larization. if anv, seDar. telv in tenn of leoallv rmissible sc heme. on the ch cate ir clai (3) In the event, a clatm is made for minimum pay scale after more than three Years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or conLractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months,"

13. The iudqment of the Apex Court re DOrted in 2O 10(9) scc 247 betwe n: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.K san and others, in Darticular Daras 4 to I reads as u nder l 4 The decision in_ S t ale aL KaaatiLd -y--!1 rnanelt--was lgrle-ret In that case, a n Co nstitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made in 2006 (4 SCC 1 .4.2 6 ) l9 SN. J wp 18754-2022 without following the due process or the appointment did not confer any riqht on tt t courts cannot direct their absorption, reg, engagement nor make their service perman. Court in exercise of lurisdiction under Att Constitution should not ordinarily issue directi,) regularization, or permanent continuance unles had been done in a regular manner, t constitutional scheme; and that the courts t. ensuring that they do not interfere unduly rt, arrangement of its affairs by the State or its nor lend themselves to be instruments to factltt of the constitutional and statutory mandates. held that a temporary, contractual, casual employee does not have a legal right to be unless he had been appointed in terms of the * adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti, however made one exceptton to the above same is extracted below : ules relating to appointees and arization or re- tt, and the High :le 226 of the s for absorption, ,; the recruitment terms of the rst be careful in :h the economic nstru mentalities, 'te the bypassing \is Cou rt fu rther tr a daily-wage lade permanent 'evant rules or in ttion. This Court ',osition and the "53- One as oect needs to be clari te! There ma ular a L ! I.I 409 a rsons ln 7 s R sanctioned va .N. Na ata an A DDOIN tments) as explained in S, 7 ointm ts__ItleLj!!e!ra! Nara NA DDA .N. Nan un ppa f7972 (7) t(4 scc I and referred to in Dara 75 above, ' dulv oua lified 2 sts mioh t have ! been ma de and the emol ovees ha " conti. ued to ! work for ten vears or more b without the , tr of tribunals. intervention of orders of the courts: The ou estion of resularization of he services of such en', DIoveesmavh sidered o merits in the liqht of the princiole:; settled bv this Court in the c.ases aboverefer red to tnd in t, e liqht of this iudoment In that contex ; the Union of India, . and Govern ment instrumentali ties should take steps p-Legu-larlze--as a one-time measu re, the servtces o t . 'uch irreqularlv aopointed, who have worked for te a .vears or more in dulv sanctioned oosts but not ,,nder cover of ls and should ens re that reqular re further tments are u nd'ertak en to filIth se vacant s tction DOSTS that reouire to be filled u cases where Dlo ees or dail ?ts_ B!e_ belEg the State ave to be orarv e ? I o I e .! _i a l0 SN. J wp _38 7 51-2022 now em DIo ved. The Drocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. ..,, "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the generat principles against regularization' enunciated in umadeii, if the fotlowing con,litions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 7O years or 'iore 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 ihe emptoyee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years' (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be iltegal' even if iiregular. Where the appointments are not made or cantinued igainst sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications' tt[ appoint^ents will be considered to be illegal' But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and 'was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoinq the process of open competitive selection' such appointments are considered to be irregular' s x (iii 'ribun n uDon es who t the the concerned a dutv tru men ti Um evi casfs d ent or i. rize the servrceso f those trreqularlv aDDOln ted requla dse ed r ro ectian f an a a one-time c di rected that such one-timem ea sure must be set in months mth da n IN rend red on 7O.4. 2006 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its i'rrp,", pirip"ctive. This would normallY mean that after the Z"[itioi in umadevi, each department or each instrumentality siould undertake a one time exercse and prepare a list of all cutiit, iuity *age or acl hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and iitinrtt and subject them to a process verification as to they are working against vacant posts and possess .the iiiti", i.qiitit" qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 21 SN, J wp 38754 2022 ,of decision in tsual employees uently, several mence the one- ' ha nd, some undertook the nployees from es were pending cumstances, the 'n terms of Para heir rig ht to be ) the one-time their cases, or t 53 of Umadevi tsider al! daily- :n 70 years of tt availing the 'ribunals. If any ts of para 53 of employees who r'i, the employer , continuation of t ill be concluded c be considered 'd.

7. At the end of six months from the dat Umadevi, cases of several daily -wage/ad - hoc/.( were still pending before Courts. Con.sr,, departments and instru menta lities did not co. time regularization process. On the otf'l Government departments or instrumentaliti(,. one-time exercise excluding several rl consideration either on the ground that their ca in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such (i employees who were entitled to be considered 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose considered for regularization, merely becaL: exercise was completed without consrderinc because the si^ month period mentioned tn p;1 has expired. The one-time exercise should <t wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put continuous service as on 10.4.2006 with. protection of any interim orders of courts or employer had held the one-time exercise in Ler Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sont were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmactr concerned should consider their cases also, as the one-time exercise. The one time exercise only when all the employees who are entitled in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so conside- 8. The ob iect behind the said direction in oara 53 of e who Umadevi have Dut in m ore than ten vearsofc ot t tnuous servtce thout the orotection of anv interim ord I f s--AI_Coutts__et tr unals. before the date of de cision i,t Umadevi was rendered. are considered for reqularizal, on in view of their lono service. Second i.stoen ! ure that the departments / instrumentalities do not E ?_ryetUate__lhe Dractice of emplovinq Dersons on lailv-wa qe/ad- hoc / casual for nd th t periodicallv reoula rEE them on the qround that thev l,zve served for mote than ten vears, therebv atinq tf, r constitutional or statutorv provisions rela qto r<,:ruitment and A DDO'N tment. The true effect of di re c ion is that all rked for m :rn years as on Umad< ,i) without the r ct that

70.4.2006 (the date of decisio Drotection of anv interim order of anv cour vacant DO , entitled to be considered for reoularizatia, The . DOS.SeSSInO the reouisite o :tli ation. two- fold. First is to ensure lono oeriods ns wh u nal, l I ) )) SN' J wp,18754 2022 I as not und u s,x monthso fth h t n within re ul r U a ev iorth at such exercrs e was unde taken onlv n Iimited few, will not dise ntitle such crard to a tz tio ht to be co side o e- m e dire ions n m evl a o e ec lo s e I o t t m o th measure. g. These appeats have been pendinq for more than four Years after the decision i' umiieii' ihe-appetlant (Zila Panchavat' t:11; c;;es of- respondents of Gadas) has not of the decision in lJmadevi or 'on'iiJ'Za" regularization within stx "ii'nt thereafter. 10. The Division Bench of the High Coyrt h,a? dtrected that the cases of respondents snou"tJ" b'e ionsidered in accordance with taw. The only further d''Jiioi'tiit needs b-e given' in view of 2'lu Panchayat' Gadag should now Llmadevi, is that undertake an exercise *iiin ti' months' a general one- time 'n" are any daily J'"t"''l i n s th e Z i t a- P a n ch av a t a nd i f reoularization exercise, ""iii'i -there t pio vi " wi g e / ca su a I / a d - n o' t "::,", ; : ;!3 :',i ii:J r ;Jii I i s o w h e t h e r s u c h e m P r o'v"J c's" i' :::: ::' : : t h e re q u i r e m e n r' - :,.r,^?.f," 1,.,' i ! ",!J, l,i" i ) n a n e x e rc i se them, their services hav has alreadY been unde'iaiii iv ignotinq o,r omitting the cases t to s ti'iut"'of"the penden'cv of these cases' then iheir cases shatt hzi""' i; "i"'.,oniia"'"a in continuation of "7"r"ioJii"i,'- three molths' It is needless to the said one time "'""'i"-n'ilnin say that ir tne responiin;t'"';l ;;; rutritt the'requirements of If Para 53 of Umadevt' ,"2''"iJi"':tut t h e e m p t o Y e e s. - " Y,; : :i i-,,;^* :,:.! ::nn ;: :r' ;: ::'r: Zi .)?li*!"'ri,' ",1 i"i ;;; ;; consid ered for possess Lh e ed.u ( a tia n a t t ;' r i ii'' a p p e a t i s d i s p o se d or 'lZ "i'J; ",? accordinglY : : i:' :,", :Ei;'; ilZ;" ; ntied not be L'" ine-ther -regularised' . ir", "Zl ", ";:' " t4. Int t m ent of the A x Cou in h a e t s un ab re orte 65, the SuPreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose 3 4 c :t Sr'-, J wp 38754 2022 wages were paid by Banks at whose r isposal their services were made available. It held that :he mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did rt rt render the appellants 'employees' of those Bank; since the appointment was made by the State arr I disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that ttr I creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadr r is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Sta te, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ( hose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relaticnship, its action is arbitrary. It a.;S._leIUECd_lS acceDt the defence that there were no sar ctioned posts and so there was f r h s :l I te to utilise rvl,_ac arf lar e number of eo le like t h rppellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned Posts drl not fall f rom n n heaven" a nd that the State has to crea I :: them bv a conscto us choice on the basis of some ratior r rl assessment of need. Referrin o to Umadevi. it held that he aooellants before them were not arbitrarily lhqserr eir initial aopointment was not an 'irreoular' appoint! rc n!_AE_E_hA-d been ma de in ac cordance with the statul 1 rry procedure 24 SN. J \tp 38754 2022 Act 1861 resc ed und r the Polic ca nnot be hea rd to sav that they are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as, accordin q to it, their a ooointments were nd the u relv temDorarv and not aoainst anv sanction ed Dosts created bvthe State. It was h e ld that the iudq ent in Umad evt ot becom a licence for exoloitation bv th e State an d inst umentalities and neither the Governmen tof Puniab nor those D u blic sector Banks can continue sucha nt with heir obli ation to f tn ton I accorda nce wittt the Constitution.

15. The iudq ment of the ADex Court reDo rted in 2015 scc Online SC L79'l between B.Srini vasulu and others v Nellore Munici oal Coroo ration Reo.bv its Commissio ner, in oarti cular Nellore District Andhra Pradesh ando TandBr ads h Cou rt The rioh We find it_difficult to accept the reasonino adoD ted bv the appelbttL !o- seek requ larization 4 (7) Hiq from the G.o No.272 dated 22.1. have been in seLyice of the first r,esDQDden issuance of t h e EAE_G-Q,b uI ele n _St-Lb_s e G.O. body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for al t t9! e-D1v-ptjPt-lelhe qaettle-fie-Esae Pl til.I todaY. The respondent Municipaltty being a statutory of the above most 20 years a 25 SN, J lvp 1375J 2022 without regulatising the service of the appellat s and continued to extract work from the appellants. 8- In the circumstances, refusing the ben( mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appetl the Tribunal br:latedly, in our opinion, is nLtt circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyinq appeal by directing that the appellants' servic( with effect from the date of their complettnc, continuous service as was laid down by this Collector/Chait person & Others vs. M.L. Srngh SCC 4BO. 'it of the above nts approached ustified. In the r:he order under ; be regularised their five yea r :ourt in District \ Ors. 2009 (8)

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reDo, ted (2o1s) 8 scc 265, the Supreme Court held that - he objective behind the exception carved out in this case vas to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregutar but not illegal, and to ensure appointmer I s, which are irregular but not illegal, and en SU rrI securitv of em n lovmen tofth ho ha dse Governm ent and their i nstru menta I ities for ose n s lA, rore than ten In that case , emD lovee was workin< for 29 years. r I ed the S l vea rs", This decision apDroves ea rlLer view : roressed M.L.Kesari extra cted above. L7, IN State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasa c (2014) 7 scc 22 3 similar view was t ken by the reported in u reme and it wa held a s Z6 SN. J $p 1875,1 2022 nt cotlt n em lo e "41.... n view of the cateqorical f indina of fact on the us issue that the res o have continued in their s rvice for m re than 7O conti uouslv therefore, the leoal orinciD e laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case ( State of 4SCC7:2 6 SCC l-&s 7 2 resent ca ourt has riohtlv held t at the res Hioh emolovees are entitled for the relief . t e sante cannot be interfe d with bv this Court," r, n Bench of lies to The Di Ka I

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ol 2023 dated 1O.10.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No,32847 ot 2O24.

19. The udoment of the Apex Court Mandir Trust V. StateofM aharashtra and Oth ers reoo rted in Hari Krishna in AIR 2O 20s u DrelTl e Court 3969 and !n a rticu la r Da ra Nos.1 oo and 1O1 held as fol lows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Atlicle 226 of the Constitutiorl of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of re dutv -bound to exercise such mandamus, but w has failed to exerclse or has wron lv exe ised e he Gove rnmen or a w 27 SN. J r\p 38754 2022 d iscretion conferred uoon it bv a statut , or a rule, or aDolicv decisio n of the Government or _l ras exercised such discretion mala fide, or ( r irrelevant ) n id eration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must ssue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel 6 r:rformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of he discretion conferred upon the Government or a public :.rthority.,,

20. The Division Bench of this Court in ! .s Judqment dated 1 O.O6.2O13 oas d in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2 A!4.-aor!-Cszt of 2O12 while uoholdino the ludqment datet OS.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.N o. 24377 oJ 2OO7 and C.C.N r .48 of 2OO8 rved as nde r: - "Further, it is manifest from the material on r:cord that the servrces of the similarly placed persons who app r rached the Iaw Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corpor. 1 on also issued various office orders/circu la rs dated 20.12.19i1 , 11..09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for re lularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen t rat Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice tr any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual cenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for :; ch a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nc t ring but unfarr labour practice attracting the provisions of Sec: rn 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relylng ) the declsions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondt ,ts are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned rrders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects . the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our . insidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.', 2L. The Division Bench of this Cou ! rlUqSECnt dated 19.O9.20 t7D sed tn w .P.No.27 2tt of 20L7 n 10 SN, ] \p-3875,1_2022 r orted in 2018 2 ALD a e282a ra1 n I observed as under:- '16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Coui-t is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. lvls. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, 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 bsorptio n/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. it has given directions rn this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India- The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.7994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la rization/a bsorptio n exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated )) 4 l qq4 .1.r n.rt r rhitf la dnrrun t h wl.lt h in Man ula Bashini's case s d men lower the traiectorv of the directions issued bv the SuDreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqmentjn lllna Deuj:s therefore not ncrm isqi hle for thc case ( sUD ra ) resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 ot 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4,L994, to denv reqularization to t satisfied the criteria laid down i nPa ra No.53 of th m m n Devi's case (suDra). a n.lt It is r h

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ oetition is allowed with the direction to the resDondents tQ consider reqularis ation of the services of the petitioners aqainst the existino vacancies of Work e Uma Devi's case (suDra). Thi within two months from the this order." in Par No.53 heir sa D rocess must be comDleted date of receiot of a copv of , 29 SN, J wp 38754 2022

22. The Divisio n Bench of this Court in - ts-lsdsEent dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in f.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2l I in 1 ot 20L9 and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reDorted in 2O2( (4)ALD paqe 379 at oaras 45, 48 and oara 5O bserved as rnder:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have t daily wage since 1990 and have put in almc: service by now. They have been given minimurr the year 2000. They have been continuously any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till di r:en working on . (30) years of :ime-scale from vorking without

48. It is not known whv the 1st resD dent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's ca5 p__lSUEal,__AE exolained in M.L. Kesa ri's case (suora) an ken a u nde one-time exercise of oreoarino the list emolovees who had worked for more than :en (10 ) vears t the intervention of the Courts and ribu na Isason withou 10.4.2006 and subiect them to Drocess v 'ification as to er the ! [!---pqs!s__a_nd possess reouisite oualifications for the p,l i-ts-_a nC_if_ Ee. reoularize t err servlces. v l a g

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowec; the impugned orders dated 20.B.2OI9 passed by the 1st resl) ndent re]ectin g the cases of petitioners for regularization of; :rvices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary i nd violative of Articles 14, 76 and 21 of the Constitutiorr of India; the resoonden ts are directed to re ularize on .l rn e basis Detitioners' services rom the date each of he-pelrEsrss co m Dlete 10 vears ofs rvl on dailv u! .oes from the nitial dates of their a DD() ntm nt. But. th r shall not be ent t led to anv mon etarv relief- The said e { lrctse shall be done within two (2'l weeks from the dat !. of receiot of coDv of the order." e

23. This Court ooinesth ati nth e Dreso tt case- resDondents failed to disc haroe th ir dutv n ama inq 30 he re u t of th to er SN. I wp_38751 2022 la riza on of iti ne s erv es t and further o rk n s ln1 s e r nslder h t5 reo ue to treatth et emDora rv rvl eofth CDetit n s th la d w e r s r n o s Iti ra ti e t wl h ra e ti efr a cordanceto law. m a e a o t n r vis d t o ti e iti ne Co

24. Th ts co sl er ti no r rln he rv tio s f h OD t tioner it n r s a t r t P it n n e c r v to ls entitled f of he rel r n o t m ts t he vie b e d rt nt eJ d m n r r fe e t Di B a h x ra t c and extracted above' 2 Taki noln to consid rat aon 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 appearang on behatf of the respondent No'4' 3l SN, J wp 113754_2022 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted abc ve) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2O2s rNSC 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) scc247 (vii) (2o13) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L79Z (ix) (2o1s) I Scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 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) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O rO and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dat -.d O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.O No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of thi: Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.p.No.27Zt7 of 2O t.7 (referred to and extracted above), I 32 SII- J \w 38754 2022 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated zl.O4.(Ozlpassed in I.A'Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O 57 oJ 2O19 (referred to and extracted above)' g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order' h rit P itio ut-fo ht re ula ri t ion of oetition rto eat it n r claim of the petitioner for r s services a nd also the claim r e Detitioner Inthe! ast orade oost of Swee Der as reoular ne f er di tnc me AD ointment of the t m ime Detitioner and all con e rel te f ouen taal benefits, dulv enclost nq all th ant docum ents in writ D tio r s ition, within ap erro I ofo ne (O 1) week from he o r o x w r rt ncl e a ortu n i f s n e rrn JJ SN. J wp 387j4 2022 Detitioner. in terms of orders ssed bv ! rc-scpIelllc Court in Uma Devi's case reoorted in 20()6(4 SCC Paqe 1, ) the iudqment passe 08.09.2010 reoorted in 2011 (1) ALD. W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 dated Pao 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O I r6.2013. and also as Der Division Bench Judome t of this Court dated I

19.O9. O17 oassed inW .P.No.272L7 of 2O0l reoo ed in 20ra(2 )ALD Daoe 282 and also the Di! 'SiS!!__ECnCh Judomen t of this Cou rt dated 2L. 4.202,. I ed in I.A.Nos.1 of 202Oin1of2O 19 in W.P.No. 2: O57 of 2O19 re Dorted in 2O 20(4)ALD aqe 379 finalitv, within a period of four (O4) weeks ! -om the date of re takinq into o Dv of this order, dul' hich rad a iotofac Dass I consid tion the observation s and the law aid down bv the Apex Court in the various iudqments (rr1 ,erred to and extracted above), and in oarticula r Dara - !e.s3--sf-lhc iudqmen toftheA the casr of State of Court Karn taka v Uma Devi and dulv coml runicate the decrston to the oetition r. However ther, shall be no e order as to costs. Sl"- I wp 38754 2022 Miscellaneous Petitions, if anY, Petition, shall stand closed' I 'i pending in this Writ t- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT RE Gt IITRUE COPY// S loN OFFTCER LLI NANDA one fair coPY to THE HON 'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUR (For Her LordshiP's Kind Perusql) To, 1 , PanchaYath { Telangana' T he State o yderabad H rnment, T yderabad The Princlp Secretariat, al Secretary The State o

2. The Pri Departm ent, I Secretary' Secretariat,

3. The P DePart to Gove rl- Secretary tariat, H ment, Secre 4. The Chief Executive Officer' O ( The Mandal DeveloPment District. a nd Rural DeveloPment DePartment' H yd erabad f Telangana' Finance and Planning he State of Telangana' Education The Zilla Praia Parishad' Nirmal District' Nirmal fficer, Mandal Praja Parisha d, Kadthal' Nirmal ^,ri^ierrv of Law, Justice and Company - . ,:^ or rndia' Ministry or L Advocates Association Library' Hish court

6. 11 L.R. Copies ; itii:-m:',f;''o'un'on t 9. One CC to Sri CH' Ganesh' Advocate IOPUCI ,.lui j"?i::""T,1""::ll'",fAifi'O'n']::::,::"::-: llio,if'"liY'i';"Jil"nnunu *'''"]'"n-: Hish court for the state of relangana' at :' '' +i#g :*x?5"":t:[isuff ,r, ,1fr?:"3iSt[t?i'"''o'"'"""' 13. One CC to Sri K Pradeep Reddy' SC for ZPP MPP[OPUCI 14.Two CD Copres rJ 0H HIGH COURT DATED:18 t0Bt2O2S ORDER WP.No.38t54 of 2022 I I ,,\ si.,r Is 1c. 6 i I 2{120 i!:': 1 i\ .' v*\.. ALLOWTNG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS