The High Court · 2025

: SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOVV JRI Counsel for the lr€!1i1:ioners Counsel for tt e R() il)ondent Nos'1 & 2 : GP FOR SERVICES- ll Counsel for the Rr:;oondent No'3 : SMT R'MADHAVI LATHII The Court made, ttr : following ORDER :: ]J 4 SN, J HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA W T PETI TI N .37 3 F 21 ORDE R: Heard Sri Krishna Kishore Kowuri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_Il appearing on behatf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Smt R.Madhavi Latha, learned standing counsel appeartng on behalf of the respondent No.3. 2 n sa che th Co rt f su der: "...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring action oF tne responOents in not reguranzing the services of the petitioners from the date of completion of five years of service on pu. *ith similar situated candidates is illegal, arbitrary, un;ustified, discriminatory and violative of Articles U','ti ainO Zt ot Constitution of India besides belng contriry to the law -Court iuOi..nt, in laid down by the Honble Apex Umadevi case reported in 2006 (4) SCt r and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of cJmpletion of five years of service with all consequentiat Oen-efits anO pass..."

3. It is specific case of the petitioners that @e petitioner Nos.1 to 4 joined as Work Inspectors and petitioner Nos.5 to 7 joined as Garden Workers in the erstwhile Khammam \ -...r':& rn,;;AH I 5 SN, J Municipalit,, p -'lsently Khammam Municipal Corporatio I during the perioJ t!)ii3 to 1991 and are continuing to work as on dat! but the re,;pc rrdents are not regularizing th€r serv c:s of the petitioners fr:rr the date of completion oF five yeilrs ,rf service on par witl '; rnilar situated candidates and th(l sa me is illegal, arbitrary, L nir :;tified, discriminatory and violati'.re c,f Ar ticles 14, 16 and 21 rr :onstitution of India besides being contri ry to the law laid (lo,^/n ly the Honble Apex Court Judgntents in Umadevi case repcrt:C ir 2006 (4) SCC 1. Aggrieved by the sald action of the responclerts, the present Writ Petition is filerl.

4. PERUSEID THE RECORD:- A. The courr ter affidavit fil d on behalf of the resipondent No.1 and i n Iljrrticular Dara No.4 is extracte d hr3rel.tnder:-

4. It rs humbly submitted for kind consiceralion that, adnri'te:rlly, the petitioners herein were en! agel by the Mulli(:ipi I Corporation in the year 19BB to l.99 and also conced,:i the fact that they have not fulfilled the |onditions in te-nr; of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated22.04.1994, however they are seeking regularization in terms of :he orders of the F cn L le Supreme Court passed in the .:ast: of Secretary State :r1 Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (a) scc r. B. The addi tional counter affi avt n behalf of the respon de nt J!o.3 and in particular oara No.8 is e,xtracted hereunder':- B. lt is submitted that the petitioners are n,)t e igtble for reg tllrr ; ation of their services in the light of G.C.14s. \1o.212 dated 22.O4.L994 as they I ave not comp e:,),1 five years as NMRs and the petitior)ers have not worke.d against any sanctioned posts. 'l-hat Hon'ble ( I 6 SN, J Supreme Court at Para 53 in the Judgment State of Karnataka Vs Uma devi opined that, the State Government and their instrumentalities should take steps as a one time measure, the service of such irregularly, appointed, who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post but not under cover of orders of the Court or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular -recruitments undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned post that required to be filled up, in cases where temporarily employees or daily wages are being employed. In the erstwhile oF A.P. State Act 2 of 1994 was enacted and the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Dept., dated 22.04.1994, a scheme was formulated for regularization of the services of the daily wage/NMR or on consolidated pay and are continuing on the date of commencement of the Act and as per the said G.O., certain conditions were prescribed, only on fulfilling those conditions the individuals can be considered as eligible For their service regularlzation. DISC SSION AND CONCLUS ION:- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly contends that in respect of similarty situated persons like the petitioners who had approached this Court way back in the year 1999 by filing W.P.Nos.933O of 1999 and 13601 of 1999. This Co urt vide its order, dated 25.07.2008 oassed orders rn W.P.Nos.9 33O and 13601 of 1999 in favour of the oetition ers there under observin as under:- " For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled for being considered for regularization of their r".u,au._. ,n the light ot t" t ? , 1 SN. I G.I Y; lrlo.212, dated 22.04.t994, irrmr:dia ely after conlrlr::ion of five years of servic'? in (hammam Municipality either in the existing vacancies c r ln the future voc.Lnit e s. Till such exercise is made, petitilnel s shall be cont n,ed in the same posts as held by then, as on today, on tre i3me terms and conditions.'1 - l-e:rrrned counsel appearing on br:half of the 6. petitioners further submits that though the orcler, dated 13.03.2O0t] passed in W'P.Nos.6799, 6834, 69'15, and 7896 of 2(105 was carried out in Writ Appei'l by the respondents in W.A.Nos.614 of 2OO4,7O9 of 2O()9, 7LO of 2OO9 & :tlll.8 of 2OO6, dated L7.O9.2OL3, the silme were dismissed in favour of the employees obsr:rving as u nder: " "ln Urr) case on hand, it is nowhere stated tha ' the initial errt'y .f the respondents is totally illegal or irregular or b;rc<clo,rr entry. It is also not the caser of the appellants that tl t: initial recruitment of the respottdertts rras not fair a rcL vi ithin the mischief of recruitm€rnt whi:h prohibit rr:orllt'zation. -rl that view of the matter, even if tre respondents a-e r()l entitled to be regularized in terms of G'O'Ms No' 27',!, rjated 22.4.t994 inasmuch a!; they have not c,rr,rt l:ted five years' service as on tho ctrt off date 22 1.'l)g4, however, as they have put in ntore than 16 to 20 yr: ars service their services are liable trl be entitled to be ie6 ularized in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court as stz ted supra. A perusal of the imptlgn<:d crder clearly r,:f er:l s that the tearned single Judge properly considered all tlrrr aspects of the matter under the irnpu,lned order, but lr )wever directed to regularise the s':rvir:es of such l I 8 SN, J flnllyees im.mediately after comptetion of five years. For tne reasons discussed hereinabove, and having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hairing regard to the law laid by the Apex Court, tne appellants 3f djrg.t.u.d to steps as expeditiously as possible for regutarization of the services of the respondents preferably within a period of three months. Sublect to the above modification, the Writ appeals are liable [o be dismissed.,, "and, -take

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that the Apex Court also confirmed the same vide its judgment, dated 1g.09.2O19 passed in SLP No.2276 to 2278 of 2OL4 and therefore, the petitioners herein who stand on the same footing are atso entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present Writ petition pertaining to regularization of services of the petitioners from the date of completion of five years of service with all consequential benefits.

8. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_ If appearing on behatf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 placing reliance on the averments made at para No.4 of the counter affidavit (referred to and extracted above), contends that the petitioners are not entifled for the retief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition, since the petitioners did not comptete the five ! I 9 SN, J years service as on the cutoff date on 25.11'1993 as per G.O.Ms.No,2 1 2:, dated 22.O4.L994.

9. Learned s;tanding counse! appearing on br:half of the 3'd respon,Jertt also submits that the Apex Court judgment relied upon by'the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitione rs very clearly observed that the said order of the Aperx 3ourt shall not be treated as a prect:tdent in other cases and therefore, the petitioners could not be benefitted vrrith the benefit of regularization as e:xtended to similarly situated persons who had approached the Court by filirrg the W.P'Nos.6799t 6834t 69L5, atrd 7896 of 2005 and had subsequently obtained the be:nef it of the orders, darterl 13.O3.20O8 passed in W.P.No.5i'99 of 2OO5 & batch.

10. Ihe-.I-llrl-oment of the Aoex Court dated 31'01'2025 re orte in 11025 NSC 144 an "SHRIPAL AND r{ THER v. NAGAR N[C!lM, GHAZIABAD", in particular, the .relevant Dara Nos. 15 to 19 are extracted hereu nder: *15. It is corrtitr ttously manifest that the Appellant Workmen rendered their services over seve al years, t0 SNJ sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer,s failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well_established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law,strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such . exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. - _, ..,, r..,t.i , I SN, J 2:t It is a disconcerting reality tha: t€'mporary err prloyss5, particularly in government insl:itutions, oftjn iace multifaceted forms of exploil-aticn' While tlr foundational purpose of temporary c()ntricts may ha r: been to address short-term or seasonrtl needs, tlt:v have increasingly become a mechanisrr to 2024 S,:(. OnLine SC 3826 evade long-iernt otiligations o,ned to employees. These practir:es malifest in se /11ra I ways: . l4isuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged fcrr work that is essential, recurring, and irrtegral to th ) functioning of an institution are often labelled as "l.crnporary" or "contractua1," even whe'n tlreir roles fir TTor those of regular emplo'rees. Such nr sclassification deprives workers of the dignity, s::urity, and benefits that regular errployees are ert tled to, despite performing identical ':asks. . A,rbitrary Termination: Temporar'7 ernployees are frr:quently dismissed without caLlse or nrlticer, as seen in the present case. This practice un(lerrlines the pr nciples oF natural justice and subjects workers to a st r:e of constant insecurity, regardl(3ss of tlre quality cr duration of their service. . Lack crf career Frogression: Temporary employr:es of':en find tnemselves excluded from opporr:unit:ies for skill c(r\/elopment/ promotions, or increnlental pay raises' l lrt:y remain stagnant in their roles, c-eating a s\stemic disparity between them and the r regular cc rrnterparts, despite their contribrltiorts being €,( lu a lly sig n ifica nt. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Ilrstitutions ircreasingly resort to outsourcing roles perl'ormed by t( rnporary employees, effectively replacinr; one set or exploited workers with another. Thi:; pr,lctice not o l y perpetuates exploitation but also dentonstrates a rleli.berate effort to bypass the cbligatior to offer rr clu la r employment. \ t2 SN, J . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as. pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, eipecially in cases of illness, retirement, - or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. ln light of these Employer's discontinuation of the stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable considerations, the Appellant Workmen a ,.* I 13 SN, J entitlenr(tnts. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trurrpr tl e legitimate rights of workmen v/ho hav3 served coni:inu,lJsly in de facto regular roles for ;ln 'lxtended Perior: .

18. lht: lmpugned order of the High Court, to tle extent the,r r:crfine the Appellant Workmen to frlture dlily-wage engaqerr,3nt without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereb I set aside with the following direction;: I. --he discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's s:r'rices, effected without compliancr: with Section 6E arc Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial l)isputes Act, LSt-7, is declared illegal. All orrlers or cocrmunications terminating their s;erv ces are qL ershed. In consequence, the Appelle nt 'rVorkmen sl all be treated as continuing in :iervice from the de te of their termination, for all purpos;es, including seriority and continuity in service. II The Respondent Employer sh;all -ein';tate the I,lrpellant Workmen in their respecti\/e )osts (or p,os;ts akin to the duties they previously p':rformed) vr thin four weeks from the date of tlris judgment. 'l'h eir ntire oeriod of absence (front tht: date of instatem r:nt) sha lbe terfmln ation until actual cou nted for contin uitv of serv ice and ritv a nd c(lnseq uential b nefits, sucha erliqibil tv for oro otions, if anv. IIt Considering the length of service, the Appellant \\ c,rkmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages frrm the date of their dlscontinuatic,n ttntil their a,l:ual reinstatement. The Respondent E mp oyer shall <:l:ar the aforesaid dues within three morths from tl il date of their reinstatement. 14 SN, J s e a reoula rization. In assessl n the Ao Della nt Workmen withi a reo larizin mo ths from the date of reinsta tement- dulv peren n ia I munt crDa I duties akin to oerm nent Dosts. Em lover shal! not imoose ed ucational or proced ura ! etroactivelv if !ied to sim ilarlv sit ated To th exten e that sanction d vacanc es for such duties exist ora re reoutre d, the Re Dondent Emolover shall exDedite all necess rv administrati ED rocesses toe nsure these lonotime emo!ovees are not ind tnitelv retained on dailv wa es contr rv to sta utorv a d eouitable norms. Aooellant Wo rkmen o criteria ees in a

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed..,

11. The i ud oment t the A nex Court dAted 20.12 2,J24 in2 La sc 1 in Ja v Union of Indiaando thers, and the releva nt paraqraph Nos.12 L3. 24. 26,27 and 28 are ext acted here nder: '12. Despite being labelled as .,part- time workersr" the appellants performed these essentia! tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two *a t5 SN, J decades. Their engagement was nol: spc'r;adic or temporary in nature, instead, il: v\ras recurrent/ regular, and akin to thl;l res p,o nsib il ities typically associated 'witlt sanctioned Posts. Moreover, thi:! res;pondents did not engage any otherr perrsonnel for these tasks during 1ftri! apperllants tenure, underscoring thr;] inclispensable nature of their work. L I 13, a-q.tt!.r th ese claim bv the resDo ndents tha The were not reqular oosts lacks 9 nature of the work oerformed brr thtl lants was oerennial and fundamtlnter! 3ppJ, the offices. Th3 to ltl 1e functioninq of recurr irg nature of thcse duties necessitates their : assification as regular posts, irr,:spe'ctive c,f hr> rr their initial engagements were lab'llle( . ir; also noteworthy that subsequert It Out.sorrcing of these same tasks t() pl.ivate €rg:rr( i3s after the appellants' terminaticn (lernJnstrates the inherent need for :hese sief v ( €rs. This act of outsourcing, tryhic h effr:c:t ively replaced one set of tryorkers wil h anotl err further underscores that the work n (luesition was neither temporary nor occasicnal. '"t4.. !it;:ttr: The landmark judgement of the Lnited in the case of Vizcaino v Micr'osoft t6 SN, J o Corporation 197 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 rig hts and benefits. It hio hliqhts role i ons an h worker s receive fair treatment.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its T i I I I I 17 SN, J p,ir( iples are often misinterpreted or rnisappliad to rlirny legitimate claims of long servi rg ernl) c)yees. This judgment aimed to disti,rguish birtr.r eren "illegal" and "irregular" appointrnenr-s. It t:ateooricallv held that emolovees in I rret( ular a ointments who w en (I a q,lrd inr dulv sanctioned posts and had serv,rrd cont inuouslv for more than ten vea rs slro,uld be considered or reqularization ils a . o{Lqq.[lgjgil9.gler However, ther la rrda tile intert of the judgment is being subverted whr:n in:;tilrrtions rely on its ciicta to indiscrirninatt:ly re jec t the claims of employees, ever in cas es whe,re their appointments are not iilegel, but merr,ly lack adherence to procedural formaliti( s. G,rvc rnment departments often cite t te ju l(t rent in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that to vesl.t rrJ right to regularization exist:; f or te rtp orary employees, overlooking t le judct rrent's explicit acknorvledgment of cas,3s reg u larization is wr)er€ Th is e selle,:tiv aoolication iu.{e ent's s tfl t and nrrr fi ose effecti it aoainst emolovees who weatlo ntzln hi:rJC : fendered indisoensable services ov r:r dq:cadCs. a ppropria te. distorts o 2-,t . jF,ini)n, In light of these considerations, in o rr it is imperative for governme,lt l 18 SN, J departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but atsb exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, 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 and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.20t8 are quashed; *""'*'* - " -*-*---ld 7 l 19 SN, J tv forthwith and forthw ith. However, The ADDellants shail be ta ken bar:k servlc es on_ rqg! la rised 4lI:e:lla nts sh ll not be ntitled to at.!y pJl!! nla rvb nefits /back waqes for the pJII]L( rdthev h ve not wor ed for but vvoulld he)--llEti dt r the ,Eg:iol-period and the same wffi cotrnterd lr'o l:_llllei r post-retira I benefits.,, s L2. The Af,_ex Court in a iudomen s uDre e c,Q es 148 d others vs J aoi it Sirrqh a nd others at Paras 54a nd il:s snrb-oaras (1)(2)(3), qt_the said iudqment observed as urrderi ofP atr arr n Sta ted in ,1.2017) 1 "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, white atljudicating upcn tn) above controversy had concluded, t,tat ienpoiafi emltlityr: ); were not enti ed to the minimum of ff,e ,rqut;, piy'_ sca,'e, rnerely for the reason, that the activities carried on 6y dailv- rtttttl,trs and regurar emproyees were sim ar. The ful bench honet,,e,-, made two exceptions. Temporary emplt,yee.;, wno fiit in eitt,e. of the two exceptions, were heti entitled to' wages it the m,,nit.tum of the p.ay-scale drawn by regular enptr:yees. The excepric,tt:; recorded by the futt bench of ihe Hig,,, Ccutt in the i m p u g' n <:, I j u d g m e n t a re extracted h e re u n de r :. "()) A daily wager, ad hoc or contracttal appointee ag1;nst the regular sanctioned posts, if appoinied after unl=rgoing a selection process based upor fai"ness and eq hlity of opportunity to att other eligibte candidatei, sltirll be enti ed to minimum of the regt,tar 1,ay :,cale from ah( late of engagement. (2) But if daity wagers, ad hoc or contractL,al aopointees ,1re not appointed against regular sanctioned posts ani rheir services are ivaited ioriiniiuriv, ,vith notional Dre)ks, by the State Government or insiru n, entatities -its. - 20 SN, J for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitted to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of tegally permissible scheme. (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 working, a daity wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be enti ed to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudoment of the Aoex Court reoorte d in 2O1O(9) f Karnataka and others v SCC 247 between: State M.L.Kesa and others, in Da icular, Daras 4 to reads as u nder:

4. The deaision ,n State of Kernetzka v. Umadevi vvzs rendered on 70.4.2006 (re in 2006 Gl SCC 7). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court hetd that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Afticles 14 and 16 of the / / --...*-..,=a,.-*;x& f ,,: l1/ zt: I? iL F( 9:7 t,l, cQ Llr ir.: ti1 Pt) tr il re( satI W,'l 1Ol ; i)< 21 SNJ Consli.tttion. This Court however made one exti the_qbe,ye oosition and thei :EDtion to ow: h iiti.,, L One aspect needs to be ctarified. .fher,= mi"y be cases ere irregular appointments (not illegal apF,ointmen ts) explained in S.V. Naraya nappa I1e67 (1) SCR 1281, f.l. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) sCC' 4091 and B.N. tqarajan [1979 (4) SCC S07l and rel'erreC to in para 15 'ove, of duly qualified persons in duly, sar ctioted vacant :ts might have been made n of the ,t to be In that cc, the State Governments ferred to ntext, the I i)n of India ,tnd their trumentalities should take steps to rcgultrize as a one- tt) measure, the services of such irregul. rly itppointed, c have worked for ten years or more in drly s anctioned ;rs but not under co ver of orders of the co,Jrts or of trtnals and shoutd further ensure that regular ruitments are undeftakeh to fi vacant t.hos,t rctioned posts that requtre to be f.illed up, in cases ?re temporary employees or daily wag,:rs tre being v employed. The process must be set in mot;on within r\onths from this date. '5. jt is evident from the above that there is an exception znurciated in t: th: s.t19ral principtes against ,regutiriaiiinl Umade,vi. i'the foilowing conditions aie futfitteal i - (i) T,te e"tr1-ttoyee concerned shourd have worked fc r ic years or 21'^,,,.1!,_', ta,nctioned post without the benetii or pro-ection of Ltte t'11'tr't1 Oroer of anv COUrt Or tribunal. In Oth,ir wOrdS, the statc, iiovernment or iis instrunentiity iniii'ii;* t,mptoyed =ntptovee and continu.ed nin in'sZii'J vir'unt,rrity ana contitt ctt:;ly for more than ten years. (ii) l'ht, a )oointment of such employee shoutd not be illegat, even it, iregular. where the "pi"iin.itl-i;",io, nade or continuea' lgainst sanctio,ned i*ti o, persons appotntec' 10 not possess the prescrieimi;;;'r;; c: ua liiications, the arytittnents wil be coniidered b i;;ii;;;,'t. ;)t wture the person en ployed possessed the prerrrit"i-qiul,,,,rur,orc un4 *nieiu ' 'inu - 22 SN, I was working against sanctioned postq but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selectiont such appointments are considered to be irreguiar. (iii) I-Jmadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders o! courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 6. The term 'one-time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective, This would normally mean that after the dgcision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daity-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequen y, several departments and instrumentatities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentatities undeftook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, thZ employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in tJmadevi, wi not tose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in pira 53 of umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daity- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years'of continuous seruice as on 70.4.2006 without avaiting the prote.ction of ariy interim orders of coutts or tribunats. 1f any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some empioyees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, the emptoyer concerned Should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded , '!*::*a.,li*S3MG*S:Xil'-.-.'ri-t-- -, - -5*r=-a;. .*osdf t I 23 SN, J onty wt en alt the emptoyees who are entitled tc' be considered in te"n: of Para 53 of umadevi, are so considered. wo- vears of conti ouo behind the said d ore than te ,on tND ,tra 53 of re at l::hose who

8. T'.foi_ Umatde havct-g ut in withLorlt- the orotection of anv interim ordet's o1' courts or tribuna ls, before the date of decision In Um,itdevi was t view of rencle,r,ld, are considered for re ularizatictn ir their lono seruice. Second is to e nsure that fr(trnP, tuate the deplr,Aflents inctfll menta iec do not ,waoe/ad- plac.ti.eeofem olovino Dersons on dailv- bsg(ca al for eriodicallv reglktllze them on the oround that thev hilve served for mlcJLtlan ten vears. therebv defeatino the con.stitutional s relati, recrut nent and ot_ ,sta aDoDt t1 tment. The true effect of the d irection is that all pgt4y;ot15 who have worked for more than tetn vears son 7A,1t.,,/.)06 (the d,ate of decision in Umadevi) u''ithout the pIo,!,eclion of anv interim order of anv court or l:ribunal, in yAsjl^t oosts, oossessino the requisite aualifi<::ation, are g7t!jfl11! to be considered for reoularization" The fact that en suclt ise of the . et1n lo ,n srx months of the decisio ntn reg!l!r-)'ization Umitde vi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in dt'sentitle such regi.TI!1 clttllk}tees, the risht to be considered for reoylarization in tefits of the above directions in llmadevi as i, one-time mealstJ_le! to a limited few- will not g, l,1e':(' appeals have been pending for more thar; four years afte' tl,tt decision in Umadevi. The Appellant lZila Panchayat, G,td.tg) has not considered the cases of respondents of regLtlar zation within six months of the decisior in Umadevi or thereatltr. 1(). Thc Division Bench of the High Couft has ctireci.ed that the c.ses ol' respondents should be considered in .zccordance with lavt. Tt e' only further direction that needs be given. in view of Ufl1dd€ ri, is that the Zila Panchayat, rSadag ::hould now uttdtn:i,l:e an exercise within six mcnths, a generz,l one- time regular'2'ation exercise, to find out whether the.e a'e any daily w1gt2/ c)sual/ad-hoc employees serving the ,Zila Danchayat and if sc, t,vht ther such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. .lf they fulfill thent, heir services have to be regularized. If :,uch an exercise I 24 SN, J has already been undeftaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 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 fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

14. The iudoment of the ADex Court reoorted in 2015 SCC Online SC 1 797 between B.Srinivalusu a nd others v Nellore Munici Dal Cor Doration Reo.bv its Commiss roner. Nellore Distri Andhra Pradesh and others ln Darticular oaras 7 and I ads as under: t D e reasontno We find it di to acce tth dorrted bv the (7) Hiah Court. The ri'ohtof the aDDellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 The aooellant have been in se ice of the first resDondent not onlv orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh A Ors. 2OO9 (8) scc 480. 25 SN, J

15. In /lmarkant Rai v State of SCC 265, JhC-S-upCeEC-l9gr! held that 'The objective behind ttre rxception carved out in this case vuas to permit ted (2015) 8 regutarisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illergal, and to ensure appointments, l'uhich are irregular h ut not illegal, and to e sure se curitvof emplovment of those oersons who had served the tate Governm.g!1! and their instrumentalities for nlorcl than ten vears". .In that case. emolovee was workinq for 29 vears. ea rlier view exprr:ssed in This decision approves M.L.Kesa fl r:xtracted above.

16. In Stirte of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in (20L41_-7_._ scc 223 milar view was takerr bv the Sunreme, Clourt and it was held as follows : "47... .r' view of the categorical finding of fact on 'he relevant cc,ntentiDus issue that the respondent einplcyees have cont.inLed in their service for more than 1(l ye,lrs continuously thereftt:, the legal principle laid down by this Coutt in Umadevi caso (St)te of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SoC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&::;) ,'-|) at para 53 squarely applies to the present cases. The D.vit;i(tn Bench of the High Court has rightly herd that the r€spotl'{Er1t employees are entitled for the relief, the same canrror: t'e interfered with by this court." L7. Lt__.tls _.t,ertinent to refer the Judqment of t:his Court dated 06.r.2.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 201 9 'i. ' ':, : ..' ai. 26 SN, J oerta ins to reoularization f 35 NMRS of sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamv Temole, Yadao trld utta. Naloonda District- which had been u D eld bv the D ivision. Bench of this Court in .A.Nc.937 of 2O 23 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed bv the o der of Aoex Co rt dated

09.O8,2024 in SLP No.32847 at-2024. This Court o Dines that in view of the observations of in the various iudoments (referred to and the Aoex Cou extracted abo ve) oetitioners are entitled for qrant of relief in the Dresent W it Petition, and the respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, since it is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 joined as Work Inspectors and petitioner Nos.5 to 7 joined as Garden Workers in the erstwhile Khammam Municipality presently Khammam Municipa! Corporation during the period 1988 to 1991 and are continuing to work as on date, and hence are entatled for consideration of petitaoners case for regularization as per para 53 of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, dated t i ,1. 27 SN, J

10.04.2006 reported in 2OOG (4) SCC 1 referred to and extracted aborle.

18. Til1rls- nto consideration: - a) The afo,r'esaid facts and circumstances of the r::ase. b) The srrbmissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Governmeint Pleader for Services-Il appearinll orr behalf of the respor.dent Nos.1 & 2 and tearned standing counsel appearing orn behalf of the respondent No.3. c) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the reslrondent No.1 (refen'r:d to and extracted above) d) The acldi:ional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent lrlo.3 (referred to and extracted abovel e) The order of this Court, dated 25.07.2r)08 passed orders in \rV.l'"Nos.933O and 13601 of 1999. f) The ordr:r of this Court, dated 17.09.2OL3t, pi:rssed in W.A.Nos.61,7 ol 2OO4, 709 oi 2OO9,7LO of 2O09 & 1218 of 20O6 (referrrr:d to and extracted above) g) The ,otx;ervations of the Apex Court reported in the various iudgments (referred to and extracted ab,ove), as enlisted brllow: 28 SN, J (i) 2025Lawsuit(SC)1s2 (ii) 2024 LawSuit(sc) 1209 (iii) (2017) 1 SCC 148 (iv) 201o(9)scc24t (v) 2015 SCC Ontine SC t7g7 (vi) (2ols) 8 scc 26s (vii) (201a) 7 scc 222 (viii) Judgment of this Court dated O6.I-2.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which had been upheld by Division Bench of this Court in WA No.937 ol 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLp No.32847 of 2024 (ix) 2oo5 (4) scc 1 The Writ Petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners, case for regularization of services of the petitioners in accordance to law, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the various Judgments (referred to and extracted above), duly considering the fact that in respect of simitarly situated persons retief of regularization had been extended, duly taking into consideration the fact that it is the specific case of the petitioners herein that the petitioners had worked for more than 10 years as on 1O.04.2006 i.e., the date of decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in 2OO6 (4) SCC 1, and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, by providing an opportunity .. t a:. \ -..ry 29 SN, J of personirl rearing to the petitioners, within a greriod of four (O4) urr:eks from the date of receipt of cop,y of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners pertaining to the subject issue. It ir; further observed that in a ssessing regulari:zartio n of the petitioners the employer r;;hall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively, if such requirements were never applied l:o similarly situated r'egular employees in the past as obsr:rved at Para 18 (ll,ause IV of the Judgment of the Aprilx Court dated 31,0:1. ll025 reported in 2025 INSC 144' in "Shripatl and another \/s. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad" (referrerd to and extracted ah ove). However, there shall be no orrler as to costs. Mis,c(:lla leous petitions,. if any, pending in :his Writ Petition, slrall srtand closed,/ //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. P ADNIANABHA REDDY .. DEF,UTY REGISTRAR .SECTIoN oFFIcER One lair c;o;ly to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPAI' Ll NANDA ' (For His Lordship's Kind Perrrs-ali To Telanr;a na t' Hyderabad. '1. The Prir:ip I Secretary, tVlA and UD Department, liecr3tari'rt, State of 2. The Corrrr ssioher and Director, Municipal Administrat on. (lovt of 3. The iorrnrrssioner, Khammam Municipal Corporation Kha nmam, Khammam Telanr;a,a. l, C. Guards. Hyderabad. District

4. 1'l L.Fl lcr i':s. IN I I I I I 5 The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CCs to cP FOR SERVICES -ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at B. One CC to SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOWUR|, Advocate tOpUCl L One CC to SMT R.MADHAV| LATHA, Advocate (OPUC) '10. Two CD Copies SA BS 4r" ; -q::il t C (]. TODAY 4ii i{" T4 I o(J ., ii:

1. /i, 25 HIGH COIJIRl' DATED:1 5t0tt12025 ORDER l WP.No.379:ltl of 2021 ALLOWIT\IG fHE W.P WITHOL,I' tllOSTS. {4/z Z3 ,