G.Lalu Nayak v. Rural Development Department

Heard Sri. Ch,Ganesh, learned coun iel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant I iovernment Pleader for Finance Planning, appearing r: r behalf of respondent No.2. learned Assistant Governrr ent Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respt ndent No.3 and Sri Kishore Rao Puskuru, learned Stan,J ng Counsel for TG Zilla Parishads, appearang on behalf of responcient No.4.

2. The petitioner approached this Cot:tt with the following prayer: " . to issue an order or direction more particular \ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the r :tion of the Respondents in not treating the ser\/ :es of petitroner as regular one in last grade post fronr Cate of appointment of petitioner by denying to pay l€( itimate living wages for actually working as full time s r'r'eeper for all purposes on par with regularly engal ld last grade employees in respondent department as ! lr High 4 SN,J W.P.No.38855 of 2022 power committee report of 1't respondent dt.07.10.1996 in violation of Articles 14, L6, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act,1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act,1976 in spite of abolition of the bonded labour as per Act 1976 in treating the 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 u nconstitutiona 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.Lr. No. 4L513/ 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 lard 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 Honble Couft in WP No. 33936 of 201 I and Batch Cases dated 02.05.2018 (2O2O (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P rn W.A.No.483 of 2O2! 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 Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits on his retirement by releastnq 5 sN.i \\ .l .No.38855 ol'2012 all consequential monetary benefits in the lalit grade post on par with regularly engaged last grade employees of the respondent departments, alc,r g with periodical increments, as revised from time to tir te with arrears of pay by granting loopercent compensE:ion as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of i rion of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No.3416 -3445 c' 20L0 and Batch Cases dated 19.02.2019 (ALD 3 of ;l )19 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles of the lon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the case of petitioner and pass. . '

3. Learned counsel DDearano on berl ralf of the oetitaoner Dlacino reliance on the avermer ts made in the affidavit filed in suooort of the oresent l rrit oetition oertaaninq in oarticul ar, to the services r lndered bv Det t oner with the res D() dents herein for n lQre than a I decad e contends that the oetitioner is enti :led for the relief as praved for in the present writ Detit lr )n, PERUSED TH E RECORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 4. Learned counsel aooeari o on b(! ralf f oetition er submits that the subi ect iss ue in the present erss uarel v r ord r f s Court 6 SN,J W.P.No.38855 of 2022 dated O8.O9.2o1 o assed in W.P.No.243 77 ol 2OO7 o 20tL 1 Pa 2 W.A.N .782 of 2O1O. dated 1O.O6. O13 and al order, dated 19_Oq-20 7 oassed ln w.P. No 27217 of 2Ol7 reoor d in 2018 t2) ALD Paoe 28 2 and also th order, dated 2L.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P .No.23O57 of 2019 reDo rted in 2O2O(4) ALD Pao e 379.

5. Learned standinq counse!aDpearinq on behalf of the res Dondent No.4 submits that the orievanc of the Detitioner as Dut-fo h in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the resoondents herein as on date and therefore. the etitioner ca nnot comolain tnaction on the art of re ndents herern rn s consid rino the orie nce of the etitioner and hence, he relief d for etition r tn e Wit petition cannot be qra nted and no Mandam us can be issued aqainst the resoo ndents hereunder as souqht for and t e Detitioner mav be directed to o ut-forth the er s -fo hin e rese n Wri Petition bv wav of a det resoonden ts herein and iled reoresentation to the uoon receiot of the said 7 SN.J No.-i Ii855 o12022 reDresentation. the respondents would <;onsider the same tn n within lle o riod. 6 Learned counsel aooearinq on berl ralf of the oetitioner does not disoute the said subrnrj ;sion made the learned stan counsel a fln on be alf of the resoon dent No.4

7. The Apex Court in the iudqment reoortgd in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L& ) in Prem Sinoh v S teofUttar l'radesh and others, at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who tave not been regularized in spite of having rendered th services for 30-40 or more years whereas they i;ve been superannuated. As they have worked in :l e work- charged establrshment, not against any rarticular project, their servtces ought to have been re gularized under the Government instructions and even a i per the decrsron of this Court in State of Karnatak I versus Umadev ( 3 ) 1 1 . This Court in the said decisic,r has laid down that in case services have been rendereC for more than ten years without the cover of the Court'; order, as one-trme measure, the services be regularize, I of such employees. In the facts of the case, those e nployees who have worked for ten years or more sl- r uld have been regularized. It would not be proper tl regulate them for consideration of regularization as oi.l ers have been regularized, we direct that their services t e treated as a regular one. HoweveT, it is made clear :hat they shall not be entrtled to claiming any dues of dif erence in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. l ley shall be entitled to receive the pension as if ti ey have retired from there oular establi hment _ and the 8 SN,J W.P.No.3E8-55 of 2022 s rendarod hrr f horrr r.ialrl. I t ha Aant t h entered the work-charo ed establashment shall be counted as oualifvino service for DUTDOSe Of t,ension."

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Associatio n Vs. State of Ka rn ata ka reDorted in 199O(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid DrincaDle that the State should not kee D a Derson tn temoorarv or adhoc service for lono oeriod and have to at such ersons r

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudoment of the ADex urt in the Sta t lzrFrrr+rlz' rF do+lr I Irr.- dated 1O.04. 2OO6 reoorted in (2006) 4SCClis extracted hereunder:- "53. One as ect needs to be clari ed. There mav be cases where irreqular aDDointments ( not illeqal aooointments) as exDlained in S.V. Naravanaooa L967 c 4 a 4 scc s 7 and referred to in oara 15 above, of dulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant oosts miqht have been made and the emDlovees have d B.N. N scR 12 72 1 1 n nti ued to w rk rm r n a s The o uestion fr without the intervention of orders of the courts or o trr tru t eou art 2ation of th e services of such emDlovees may have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in t overeferred to and in the liqht of this iudqment. In that context. o ( 9 SN,J Y . '. No.l8855 of2022 the Union of Indi the State Goverr r ments and their instrumentalities should take steps to reoularize as a one-tame measure, th5 services of such irreoul arlv a oointed, who havt: worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned r: ,sts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should fu her ensure th rt reqular recruitments are u ndertaken to fill 1:l lose vacant gajctioned posts that require to be _ 'illed uo, in cases where temDorarv emDlovees or ! ailv waoers are beino now em loved. The oroce ssr must be set in motion within si months from this ( ate, .,.,

10. The iudo ment of the Aoex Court dateo 120.L2.2024, reoorted i 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jaqc o Anita and others v. Unaon of India and others, and he relevant oaraqraoh Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 t!'e extracted hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "parl:-time workers," the appellants performed t tese essential tasks on a daily and contitr rous basis over extensive periods, ranging 'rom over a decade to nearly two decades. ''heir engagement was not sporadi< or temporary in nature. instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsi bi I ities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during; the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim bv the resoondentr these were not reqular oosts lacks rerit, as the nature of the work oerformed lr / the n t0 SN,J W.P.No.38855 of 2022 aDDella nts was erennial and funda ental to the functioninq of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (gth Cir. 1996)] 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 hiqhli qhts the iudicia rv's role in recti suc misclass ifications and ensurino that work ers receiv fair treat ent. \' '.No.18855 o12022 Sn-,J

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (: ; rpra ) sought to curtail the practice of bar :l door €d entries and ensure appointments adher .l lt its constitutional principles, it is regrettable tl principles are often misinterpreted or misa p plied to deny legitimate claims of long s : -ving employees. This judgment aimed to distir t yu ish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointr 1lnts. It cateqoricallv held that employe, 3; in irreoula I aDn(lintm ents, wh o were e n( L tqed in dulv sanctioned oosts and had s,9 rved continuously for more than ten I ears should be considered for reqularizatig n as a One-time measure. However , the larr lable intent of the judgment is being subverted vhen institutions rely on its dicta to indiscrimir ately reject the claims of employees, even in :ases where their appointments are not illegal but merely lack adherence to procedural form,: ities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue th )t no vested right to regularization exist; for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledg ment of .ases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aDDlication distorts _ the I ud ment's sntrtt t velv n rf nr rrnzrca affaz' weaoonizinq it aqainst employees _ who have rendered indispensable servicesl over decades. d

27. In light of these considerations, I opinion, it is imperative for goverr departments to lead by example in prc r fair and stable employment. Engaging wc on a temporary basis tor extended p(l especially when their roles are integral I organization's functioning, not only contr.r' international labour standards but also e;< the organization to legal challenges undermines employee morale. By ens;r fair employment practices, govern :kers iods, r the )OSCS n ent t2 SN,J w.P.No.38E55 of 2022 institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote iob security, and uphold the principle6 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 cou ntry.

28. In vie\ r of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.20 18 are quashed ; DD The a ellants shall be . back on dutv forthwith and their servi ces req larised fort with. llants shall not Howe ver. the ao bee ntitled to anv Dec nrarv benefits /back waoes for the Deriod thev have not worked for but would be en itled to continuitv of services for the said oeri od and the same would be counted for their oost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judoment of the ADex Court dated 31.O1. 2.J25 reoorte d in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL ND ANOTHE R AGAR N IGAM, GHAZIABAD ".ino a rticu lar, V releva nt Dara Nos.1 5to19 are extracted hereu nder: l3 SN,J \\ l'.No.18855 of 2022 Indian labour lar r '15. It is manifest that the Appellar t VtloIklneo continuously rendered their services r )ver several years, sometime s soannino more th,1r a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in ful!, the Employer's failure to ft rnish such records-desoite directions to do s -allows an adverse inference u nderwe l-esta bli ;hed labour stronqlv i urisprudence. disfavors Derpetual dailv-waqe or contractual eDqaqements in circumstances whert: the work is oermanent in nature. Morallv and leoq llv, workers who fulfil onqoinq municipal require ments vear after year cannot be dismissed srl mmarily as dispensable, particularlv in the ab ience of a qenuine contra or aoreement. At thi juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broa(J rr critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practic:r s as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggc v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive mrsuse o temporary employment contracts, as exemplifior in this case, reflects a broader systemic rssue , at adversely affects workers' rights and job sec'lrity. In the private sector, the rise of the gig ec l romy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterize( by lack of benefits, job security, and fair tr(,i tment. Such practices have been criticized 'r r exploiting workers and undermining laboLr standards. Government institutions, entrusted n ith upholding the princlples of fairness and justice. bear an even greater responsibility to avord suc I exploitative employment practices. When public ! ector entities 14 SN,J W.P.No.36E55 of 2022 engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental oPerations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism ta 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o Misu se of "Tem oorarv" La bels: Emol ovees enqa ed for work that rs es ntial, recu rrinq, inteoral to the fu nction inq of an "temDor arv i nstitution are often la belled a ntractual," even when their reqular e molovees, Such those of mrrror miscla ssification d eori ves workers of diq nitv, sec u ritv, a nd be nefits that re ular emolovees are desoite performi nq identica Ita sks. entitled to, . Arbitrary Termtnation: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless oF the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creatinq a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally sig nificant. l5 S 'r- J \' '.r:"o i83i5 ol1022 . Using Outsourcing as a Shielc Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing rc,l )s performed by temporary employees, elfectivety 'eplacing one set of exploited workers with a rother. This practice not only perpetuates exploi -i tion but also demonstrates a deliberate effort t( bypass the obligation to offer regular employmer t. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefii : Temporary employees are often denied fundarTri Intal benefits such as pension, provident fund, hei: th insurance, and paid leave, even when their enure spans decades. This lack of social security : ubjects them and their families to undue hardshipr, especially in cases oF illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge t'r inability to justify these abrupt Consequently, it ordered re-engagement o with some measure of parity in n i Regrettably, this only perpetuated preca- Appellant Workmen were left in a margirr yet still uncertain status. While the recognized the importance of their work i eventual regularization, it failed to continuity of service or meaningful back w l commensurate with the degree oF statu' evident on record. : Employer's -erminations. r daily wages rimum pay. lusness: the lly improved High Court nd hrnted at :fford them ory violation L7. In light of these considerations, tlr r Enrployer's discontinuation of the Appellant Worknrr n stands in violation of the most basic labour law prin< ples. Once it is established that their services werl terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6 \ of the U.P. l6 SN'J W.P. No.38855 of 2022 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were d ntia I r nnial du r intY. While concerns of municioal budoet f itment nsider uitabl n rns do n itlemen ations Indee bsolve rne a bu rea limita ions cannot trumo the Ieoitimate ri hts of workm enwhoh ave se ed contin u o US v tn de facto reoular roles for an extendedoeriod.

18. The imouqned order of the Hiqh Court, to the nfine th A ellant W rkme future dailv-waqe enoaoement without co ntinuitv s hereb vse t asi de, kwa es- with the followino direct ion s: ea nano I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, eFfected without compliance v'/ith Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, t947, 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 ln service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously within four weeks from the date of this performed ) e rlo judgment. T term i nation until (from the date of r entir f abse ctua I t7 Sr-.J \\. '\o.i8855 o12022 reinstatement) shall be c,l unted for continuitv of service and all cQ nseque ntaa I benefits. such as senioriW and ,i ioibilitv for promotions, if anv. III. Considering the length of ;ervice, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled t ) 50% of the back wages from the date of their c i ;continuation until their actual reinstatement. Th( Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaicl dues within three months from the date of their rr instatement. x month s fro IV. The ResDondent Emolover ir; directed to initiate a fair and transoarent orocess for reqularizinq the Aooellant Work men within the date of re irstatement, s dulv considerin q the fact thai: thev have performed perennial municipal d! ties akin to permanent Dosts. In _ a ssessin q reqularization, the Emolover sha l.l not imoose educational or CrLteria retroacti velv if such reouirerr ents were the Aooellant I {orkmen or never aoolied to similarlv situated reoular emp rvees in the past, To the extent that sanction d vacancies for such duties exast or are r quired, the (pedite all ResDondent E Dlover shall ,3 necessarv admanistrative proces!i :s to ensure these lonqtime emDloyees are not indefinitelv reta ined on dailv wa( es contrarv to statutorv and eouitable norms. Droced u rer I I I s

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the app,l rl(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed. L2. The Aoex Court in iudqment reoorted in (2OL7) 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puni;rl r and others i8 SN.J W.P.No.i8355 of2022 vs Jaoiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-Daras 2 as unde d ment of th "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scalet merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to waqes at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement da i, ad hoc ntractu tr se i,e. for 7 ctual a rvrces are 2 vailed lv. with notional breaks. bv the State for a its instrumenta lities I ADDO tees are not aDDointed a oainst se ncti'oned nosts and the contin Govern ent or waoe -ad hoc or t anv allo work of oerennial natu worked clai, conside DC rmissible scheme, nces on the assumDtion that is available an havinq r such lono oeri'od of time. an eo u itable created in such cateqorv of oersons. Their t reqularization, if an mav have to be leaallv s shall he a terms of seoaratelv of the r ar. ,rft n (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous workinq, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual emploYee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months." l9 SN,J $'. '. No.i3855 o12022

13. The iudqment of the ADex Court eDorted in 2IJLO( 9)s cc2 47 between: State of Kar rataka and others v M.L,Kesari and others, in particular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as under:

4. Th s 'Jmadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 H) S:C 1). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Co,t t held that ,rocess or the appointments made without following the due / right on the rules relating to appointment did not confer ar ' absorption, appointees and courts cannot direct thctt regularization or re- engagement nor make their service tf jurisdiction permanent, and the High Court in exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution shoulc' not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent n done in a continuance unless the recruitment had be't regular manneL in terms of the constitutioni scheme; and t they do not that the courts must be careful in ensuring th, t of its affairs inlerfere unduly with the economic arrangem('t by the State or its instru mentalities, nor lena :hemselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional held that a and statutory mandates. This Court further temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-v,, ge employee does not have a legal right to be made perme'r ent unless he t rules or in had been appointed in terms of the relevar adherence of Articles 74 and 76 of the Co1 ;titution. This ) position and Court however made one exception to the abov the sa me is extracted below : 75 above of "53. One asDect n eeds to be clarifiey'. There mav be cases where irreoular aoooit , ments (not illeoal apoointmentsl as exolai0 td in S.V. NaravanaDDa f7 967 (7) SCR 1281, R.N. Naniundaooa f 7972 (7t SCC 40 9_ I and B.N. Naoaraian [7979 (41 SCC 5O7l and | #erred to in 7;ons in dulv sanctioned vacant.oosts might havg been made have continuec to work for and the emolo I ten vears or more but without the itt ervention of 'he question orders of the courts or of tribunals. s of such f o emplovees mav have to be conside,.! td on merits in the lioht of the orincioles settled t ty this Court of the servic< rec,ularizat 20 SN.J w.P.No.3EE55 oi 2022 -time measu in the cases abo referred to nd in the li't ht of this iu ment. In that context, the union of the State Governments an India, instrum talities should take steos to ularize the services of such irreaularlv aooointed. who have worked for ten under cover of orders of the courts or of t.ribunals and s uld further ensure that reoular recruitm ents are undertaken to fill those vacant 'n cases where fe Dorarv em olovees or da ilv are beinq now emplo ved. The o rocess set tn motion within six months from this date, .,,, "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in llmadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled ed Dosts 'hat reduire to be filled uD. (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duty sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of anY court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentalttY should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ri) The appointment of such employee should not be rllegai, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against Sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed mtnimum quatifications, the appointments will be consrdered to be illegal. But where the person emploYed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. utv uDon asts a ment oL instrum talitv, (iii) Uma Go requla rize the emolo vees whL had se fit or p without t, of courts Uma evi. di. the concerned to take steDs to ose ,rreqularlv aopointed for more than ten vears ction of anv interim orders unals, asa one-time me sure. one-time measute must be rvices of d 2t SN.J \\ LNo.3 88i5 of2022 set in motion within six months from decision (rendered on 7O.4.2006). date of its

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be ur t proper perspective. This would normally mear deasion in Umadevi, each depaftme;j instrumentality should undertake a one-time prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad t, who have been working for more than ten yeil intervention of courts and tribunals and sub.,t process verification as to whether they are vh vacant posts and possess the requisite quali;'i post and if so, regularize their services. erstood in its lhat after the or each exercise and rc employees s without the ct them to a rking against :ation for the

7. At the end of six months from the date >f decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage1td-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. )onsequently, several departments and instrumentalities did tot commence the one-time regularization process. On the otl1, tr hand, some Government departments or instru mentalities rndertook the one-time exercise excluding several en l loyees from consideration either on the ground that tht:,' cases were pending in courts or due to sheer over:ti lht, In such E ttitled to be circumstances, the employees who w€r€ considered in terms of Para 53 of the decisio,, in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for egularization, merely because the one-time exercise was conl eted without considerinq their cases, or because the six Tonth period menttoned in para 53 of Umadevi has expirea. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-waq /adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of contin! rus service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection t f any interim orders cf courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umaoe , but did not consider the cases of some employees who vh're entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the empl't,er concerned should consider their cases also, as a continua:t )n of the one- time exercise. The one time exercise will be c )ncluded only when all the employees who are entitled to b? considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considere'l two- fold. First is

8. The object behind the said direction r.! r oara 53 of ,t those who Umade have put in more than ten vears of contilrous senrice without the Drotection of anv in terim or.t_ trs of courts or tribalrals, befprelhe date of decisio, ? inU adevi ensure t 22 SN.J W.P.No.38E55 of2022 lities ndered, a for lon conside d for requ rization in view nd is to en<ure that t.he ire. S e te th of emolovino o tsons on dailv-waae /ad- dicallv of th ir lono e Dra oeriods and then De hoc /casual reou rize them on the oround that t. v have therebv defeatin ten ved n of th ent. direc ,on ts that all oersons who have 6tor 'ked for mofe te of decis,on tn on ofa v interim order Umad evil witho t the Dto vears a on 7O.4.2 006 (the nstituti' e ore th n co r tri, Th reouisite oualifica tion. are ntitled to be considered hin s ulariz, ertake mon hs of 'se was u dertaken ill not d. ntitle such emolo few, cons ered for oulariza directions in llmadevi as a one'time measure. ,n madevi or t.'hat such lv in reoard to a limited the rioht to be s of the e decis in te r ,n g. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in tJmadevi. The Appellant (Zila PanchaYat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only fur-ther direction that needs be qiven, in view of umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadaq should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercbe has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not futfitl the requirements of Para 53 of tJmadevi, their services need not be regularised' If the employees who have compteted ten years service do not 23 SN,J \o.3ltE55 of2022 possess the educational qualifications prescrib= I for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be' :onsidered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This apg al is disposed of accordingly. L4. In the iudqment of the Apex Court in- Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Puniab reoorted in ( 2.t tt31 14 taa 65 the Supreme Court considered ttr,: case of absorption of Special Police Officers appoi rted by the State, whose wages were paid by Banl:r at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the t ank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those 3anks since the appointment was made by the State anrl disciplinary control vested with the State, It held that he creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrr is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Stat !, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre l, rt chose to make appoantments of persons creating contractual relationship, its actaon is arbitrary. It als( refused to acceDt the defen ce that there were no san ioned oosts and so there was iustification for the St:r:e to utilise servtces of la roen U mber of oe ole like ttr, : apDellants for decades. It held thall "sanctioned oosl:: do not fall SN.J W.P.No.38855 of 2022 from heaven" and that the Stat e has t crea te hem bv a conscaous choice on the ba srs of some rational assessment of need. Referr no to Umadevi. it held that o t the aooellants betore them were not arbatraril chosen their initial aDoointment was not an 'irreoular' aDDointment s it had been made in ac rdance with v irfr rlar s r roc dure rescrib Ad r r ndar lra Da li e Act

1861. and the state cannot be heard to sa at thev to he ahsorbe d into the are not entitl state on Dermanent basis as. accordino to it, their rvices of t he ln men s were t nd not a atn anv sanctioned Dosts created bv the State. It was held that the iudoment in Umad vi cannot become a lacence for exoloitation bv the State and its instru menta I ities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those public ct r Banks can nt n r ra cr ia h AN ractic rranneicla nt with t obliq ation to function in accordance with the Con stitution.

15. The iudqment of the ADex Court reDo rted in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B,Sranivasu lu and others v N el lore M u nieipallarpafatio n Reo.bY its Commissioner, 25 SN,J \o.3tiS55 of2022 Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and _ others. in particular oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: h The ht of the a (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reasor in adopted bv e'l rnts to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 d.U ?d 22.4.1994. The aopellant have been in service of the first I ?spondent not onlv Drior to the issuan ce of the said I O. but even subseauent to the issue of G.O. till todav. f rc respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obligc I by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentic'r ed G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 2O 'ears without regularising the service of the appellants at continued to extract work from the appellants. J

8. In the circumstances, refusing the beno t of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that t )e appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our t pinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the app. 1l is allowed modifying the order under appeal by drn: ting that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuou: ;ervice as was laid down by this Court in District Collecto-, Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 48(

16. Amarkant !v t of Bihar re r rted (2O15) 8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this :ase was to permit regularization of such appointmerr , which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure Erl rpointments, illegal, ar( to ensure t ose DE rsor rs who had securitv o served the State Government and instrumentalities for more than ten vear;". In that which are irregular but not fem D lo m e nto f 26 SN.J W.P.No.38855 of2022 case, em lovee was workin o for 29 vears. Thi decision aDDroves earlier view exoressed in M.L.Ke sari extracted above. L7. In State of .larkhand v Ka mal Prasad re orted in (20L41 7 SCC 223. similar view was take bv the Suoreme Co urt and it was held s follows "47.... rn view of the cateoorical findino of fact on the contentious iss e that the Dondent relevant s have continued in their service for more n70 I I ltnaAa v, n nuousl this Co le laid do of Karnat, a lt R cl 73 <f? ses, The Divisio n Bench of the H h Coutt Dresent has rish 'lv held that the resoondent emolovees are r the relief. the same cannot be i,'nterfered entitled with bv t is Court," madevi 53

18. The Judgment of thas Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ol 2O19 which pertaans 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 of 2(J23 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.OA.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024. 27 SN,J I' P.No.38855 of2022 19, fhe iudqment of the Aoex Court in {ari Krish na Ma ndir Trust V. State of Mah a rashtra _ and Others reDo ed in ArR 2020 suDrerne urt 3 969 a nd in particular oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as fo! ows: "100. The High Courts exercising their juri ;diction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rot only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to r1 (ercts DOWer where t e Government ( aDU blic a uthoritv has failed to exerc rse or ras wronolv exerci sed discret on conferr d UD l itbva stat te. or a rule, or a oolicv de< ;ion of the Gov rnment or has exercised su h di: :retio mala fide. r on irrelev ant cons ideration. ) l l j

101. In all such cases, the High Court mL: t issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compc performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of lhe discretion conferred upon the Government or a publi,: authority.',

20. The Division

10.o6.20 3 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 ench of this Cou rt in il; Jud qment f 2O1O and ( 4of 2w u h din oa.o9.2010 Dassed in W. P.No.243 77 ol' 2 7an C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 observed as u nder:- lud nL! n h "Further, it iS manifest from the material on . rcord that the services of the similarly placed persons who ,: rproached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Cc -poration also issued various office orders/circu la rs datel 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and taresr being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract employees, lt is also to be seen that Section 25-T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As carr be seen from 28 SN,.I W.P.No.3E655 of 2022 the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." n hof 2L. dated 19.09.20 7 oassed in W.P.No .272L7 ol 2fJt7 LO a e2 2 t ar 2 18 2 a o d urt in 18 ob erved as u der: - "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court 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. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, 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 absorption/reg ula rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also ljnion of India. the Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.o. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 2 s the d rections r5sued bv the Su Dreme court in Pa ra 53 vi's ore, not permissible for the res ondents to take ment in U a ase s Man 22, hi, s. n r 29 SN.J \o.l tis-s5 oll022 1994 and G.o. Ms. shelter under Act 2 o.27.2. dated 22.4.1994. to denv reqularization to thc oetiti oners, who have admittedlv. satisfi the critet a laid down in Para No.53 of e iudqment in Uma Devi's case (suora).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, :rder, dated 27.6.2077, in OA No.1442 ot 2074, on the fite rf the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petation is alloy ed with the direction to the respondents to consider ! :qularisation of the services of the oetitioners aoains! the ex istinq vacancres of Work Insoectors nd aoooin :hem subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down ! Para N .5 of the iudoment in Uma Deyi's case .J suora). This Drocess must be comoleted within two nonths from the date of receig_t of a copv of thas order.:

22. The Division Benc of this Court in I s Judqment dated 21. 4.2O2O Dassed in I ,Nos.1 of _2 O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reoorted in 2020(4)ALD oaoe 379 at oaras 45. 48 ara 50 n a observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners har, r been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in atr ost (30) years of service by now. They have been given min r rum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been cont rr rously working without any Court orders in their favour from I190 ti date. 48. It is ot known whv the lst resDo dent has not ecision in Uma Devi's ca : (suora). as followed ri's case (s ora) a exola i ed in M.L. K ertaken a one-time exercise of oreoarino the list_ :f daily waoe emolo ees who ha worked for more ran ten (1O) ! vears without the intervention of th C Courts and r un e: them to a 1 process verification as to whether the are wor vacant Dosts a d oossr:;s reou isite aqai nst oualifi ations for the Dosts. and if so. r qula rlze their servrces. nd sub I ! r o c v i0 SN.J W.P.No.38855 of 2022

50. Accordingly. the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20,8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; on one-time the recnflnde nt€ reoularize a re directed rvt esf DetLti ners comDlete 10 vears of servi f heir a a shall not be entitle to anv mon tarv relief . T e said shall be do e within two (2) weeks from the exerct dlte of recei of coDy of the or er, tn m nt on dailv t h h 23, This Courto DI es that int hED resent ca se the eth rd h r f ioner f re ul tion o Detiti ner's services, who is worki nq as full sweeoer and further to consider his reouest to treat the tem rarv servlce of the Detitioner in the last orade f full time weeDer as reoular on for all our DOSeS Dost rt dic revis d from time to time from the date of aoooi ntment of the Detitioner, in accorda n ce o law.

24. This Court ooines that etitioner is entitled for const eration of oetitione r's case for qrant of the relief ved for in the Dresent wrat Petiti on tn vtew of the varlou s iudoments obse rvations of the Apex Court in as or 3l SN.J I l'].No. i68-i5 ol 2021 (referred to and extracted above) and thr2 w of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judq m( nts referred to and extra cted above. o

25. Takin into conside ration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstancer; of the case. b) The submissions made by the lear red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner rnd learned standing counse! appearing on behalf of ttrr : respondent Nos.4 & 5. c) The observations of the Apex Court it the various judgments (referred to and extracted abov 3) and again enlisted below: (i)(2020) l scc (L&s) (ai) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l SCC 148 (vi) 201o(9)ScC247 (vii) (2013) 14sCC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online 5C L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 sCc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scC 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 32 SN.J W.P.No.38855 of 2022 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 1O.O5.2O13 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uptoading the Judgment dated O8'O9'2O10 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C'C'No'48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated Lg.Og.zOL7 passed in W.P.No'272L7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos'l ol 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23Cr57 of 2019 (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' w o e t P t o r Sw o h al we cl mo the etit ner I titi ner r servl ces reat h b n r r all ur 33 \" ' No.38855 of2022 S^--.J qrade pav with periodical increments revisg d from time to time from the date of apooantment of tt e oetitioner and all con sequentaal benefits, dulv enck:;ino all the relevant documents in suooort of Detitiorr1 :r's case as out-forth in the oresent writ o tion, withi a oeriod of I one (O 1) week from the date of receiot of coov of the order and the resoondents shall examine e nd consider the same in accordance to law, in cont )rmity with orincioles of natural iustice bv rovidinq arr oDportunitv of DErsonal hearinotothen erir oner- in te ns of orders oassed bv the Suoreme Cou in Uma reoort d in 2OO6(4) SCC Paoe 1. t e iudq _ Devi's case r rent passed tn W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 dated 08.09.201 0 r€ported 2011 (1) ALD, Paoe 234 and as <r nfirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10. O6.2O13, an g also as oer Division Bench Judoment of this t: )urt

19.09.2O17 oassed in W .P.No.272L7 of 2O0 reported in ( 2018 2)ALD oaoe 282 and also the Di n Bench Judqm nt of this C urt dated 2 .o4.20tl, I Dassed in I.A.Nos.1 t 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.2 o57 of 2019 v reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD paqe 379 which lrad atta ined 34 SN.J W.P.No-38855 o12022 kin tn s t the varrou s iudoments (referred to t icu r n raN .53 e fst c, I e fin ti a t bv the Aoex C ourt i Karnata ka Uma Devi n order as to costs. and duly com mu n icate the ilb no s h H Miscellaneous Petitions, Petition, shall stand closed. I if any, Pending in this Writ I SD/-B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER one fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her LordshiP's Kind Perusal) To, 1 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law, Justice Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court

4. The Principil Secretary, Parrchayathraj and Rural Development Buildings, Hyderabad Department, Secretariat, TS., Hyderabad. - S. in6 Principal Secretary, Financ6 and Planning Department, Secretanat, T. S., Hyderabad.

6. The Principal Secretary to Government, Education Department, Secretariat. T.S..Hvderabad. Janooan.

7. The Chief Execuiiv'e Ofticer, Ziha Praja Parishad, Jangoan District, f - Ghanour. Janqoan District. Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. The"Mandal Development Officer, Mandal Praia Pe r shad, Station 9. One CC to SRl. CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] io i*. -c-ci to GP FoR SERVICES l, High-(l )urt for the state of rr.iwo LCs'io 'Cp fOn'EDUCATION, High O' urt for the State of 12Tio ics to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURA[. )EVELOPMENT 'High 13.Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNIIJ i, High Court for the 14.ONC CC IO5RI. KISHORE RAO PUSKURU, SC FOR TS ZILLA State of l elangana. at Hyderabad [OUTI Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI Telangana. at Hyderabad [OUT] -PARISHADSIOPUC] ./' '1 5. Two CD Copies BM BS 1w CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2810712025 '( =iii,J.-}F\,P-\ Z o [t[ ?tj25 ,,J r) (, L- ) .) t )i... :-a ORDER WP.No.38855 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS