Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018 · The High Court · 2025

Hearrd Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf ol' the petitioner, Smt. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Sitanding Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.S and 6.

2. prayer as undef: ''...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respon,Jents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post from date of appointment of petitioner by denying to pay legitimate living wages for actually working as full time sweeper for all purposes on par with regularly engaged last grade employees in respondent department as per High power committee report of 1't respondent dt.07.10.1996 in violation of Articles L4, L6, 2L, 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of our Constitution by not imp,lementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 arrd provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 inspite of abolitiorr of the bounded 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 unconstitutional ..f t 4 SN,J wP_40375 2022 "r:;;ffi and prays to cart for the officiar records rerating service conditions, seniority and sanctioned posts of last grade posts in zpplrvrpp schoors arong with imprementation or High power Commiftee report in D.O.Lr.No.41513/Es tt.V/A2_t, dt'o7 '10' 1996 to direct the Respondents r.,"."in to treat the services of the petitioner as'regurar-one in r.rt g."a" ,;;;;;; the date of initiat appointme* by appfyins the principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2019 (1) SC 516) and Division Bench of rhis Hon'bre court in w.p.No.33936 ,t ,ol, Jno ,u,.n cases date 02.0s.2018 (2020 (4) ALD 37e Ts (;il;wed by decision of the Hon,bte Hish courr of A.p; i, w;.;;,;;;' of 2'2tdated 05'08'2021 based on principle laid by the Hon,ble supreme court in c'A'No 'L254 0f 201g Apex couft, dated 23.03.207g in the case of Netram sahu v. state of ,chattisgarh & Anr. In civir Appear No'1254 0f 201g, dated 23.03,201g to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of quarifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement oeneRts on his retirement by rereasing a[ consequentiar moner"., o"nufits in the rast grade post on par w*h regurarry ""r.l"o rast grade employees of thr-. respondent departments, along with periodical increments, as revised from time to time *ith;;*"rs of pay by granting Looo/o compensation as per principre raid o, or", court in the case of union of India vs. Avtar chand in c.A.No .34L6 _ 3445 0f 2010 & Batch cases dated 1g.02.20L9 (ALD 3 0f 2019 sc 32) by apprying the aforesaid principres or tne ion,or" Apex court under Articre L4L of our constitution o, aio Hon,bre court in the case of petitioner and pass...,, : j ! I ! I I I I I i t i 5 WP 403 SN,J ' 2022 75 pertaininq in Jratticular, to the services rendered bv petitioner with the resPondents herein for more than a ctecade contends that the oetitioner is entitlecl for the relief as prayed for in the present writ oetition. PERUSED THE RECORDT- DISCUSSIQN AN D, CONQLUSION :- 4. @lfned counsel aDDed oetitionel' submits that the subiect issue in the Dresent case is squarelv covered bv the orcler of this Court datect O8.O9.2O1O Dasse4 in W.PrNo.24377 of 2OO7 reported in 2011(tI ALD Paoe 234 as confirmed in w.A.No.782 0f 201O. ctatect 1O.O6.2O13 ancl also order dated 19.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2O17 reoorted in 2O18 (2) ALD w.P.No.23057 0f 2019 reoofted in 2020(4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standino counsel aDDearino on behalf of the respondent No.5 submits that the orievance of the oetitioner: as out-forth in the present Writ Petition had not been addrgssed to the respondents herein as on date and therefore, the oetitioner cannot complain inaction on the I I 6 SN,J wP 4037s 2022 r.easonable oeriod. ,

6. Nos.S & 6.

7. "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to 7 SN,J wP 40375 2022 have been regularized under the Govemment instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been renrlered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, tho$e employees who have worked for ten years or more sho"rld have been 'regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entltled to claiming any dues of difference in lvages had they been continued in service regularly befcrre attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired rendered bv them rlght from the dav thev entered tbg work-charoed establishment shalt be counted as oualifvino serwice fer puroose of oeRsion.,, 8 The ADex Couft in the case of Dharwad Distri PWD tllgEate-Daily Waoe Emplovees Assocaation vs. State of Kar4ea reported in t99O(2 that the State should not keeo a oe n in temDor arv or adhoc service for lono oeriod and have to treat such Dersons as reoutar one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudoment of the Aoex Court !!!-thc-Sllate of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated is extr cted (2006) 4SCCl

10.o 4.20,06 rted i hereu nder:- ltt a.!til I i :l i I I : i I 8 SN,J wP 40375 20.22 work for ten years or more but without the intelwention of orders of the courts or of tribunals.

10. hereunder: o12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary 9 SN,J wP 40375 2022 in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, andl akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreov€r, the respondents did not engage any other for these tasks during the p€r:sonr€l appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reoular oosts lackg_ merit, as the nature of the work oefformed by the apoellants was oerennial and fundamental to the functionino of the gffices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their clas:;ification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also note,worthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent neecl for these seruices. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in q,ues;tion was neither temporary nor occasional. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in tt^e case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d LLBT (9th Cir. 1996)J serves as a pertinent exarnple from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circu mvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee bene:fits. 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 s;ame benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adop,ted the practice of hiring temporary emp oyees 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 .-+n- f, l0 SN,J wP 40375 2022 the corresponding rights and benefits. It

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. "irregular" time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. Thip selective aoolication distorts decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee 1l SN,J wP 40375 2022 morale. By ensuring fair practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, prornote iob security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with internatioral standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follorr, 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 sr:t aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.2018 are quashed; ii. rrrorrlrl retiral benefits." anrrnterl far nrrct-

11. "15. It is manifest that the Apoellant Workmen T2 SN,J wP 40375 2022 aqreement,! 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, ElS 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 rnisuse 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. l3 SN,J wP 4037s 2022

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 to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o ,, misclassification deprives workers of the dionitv. securitv. and benefits that regular identical tasks. . 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 frorn opportunities for skill development, 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 significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles peformed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. l4 SN,J wP_40375 2022 o Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, heblth 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. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimurn 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. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appeltant Workmen 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 enoaoed in essential. oerennial duties, these workers cannot be releoated to oeroetual uncertainty. While concerns of municioat budget and comoliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv oblioations or neoate eouitable entitlements. Indeed, r'*-'q*-r.#-._ 15 SN,J wP 40375 2022 bufeauiratic limitations cannot trumo the leoitimate rio'hts of workmen who have served contint*rously in de facto reoular roles fgr an extended period.

1.8; The imouqned order of the Hioh Court, to the extent thev confine the Appellant workmen to future daily-waqe enqaqement without continuiW or meaningfut back waqes, is hereby set aside with the &Sgwino directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Wor:krnen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, 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 alt 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. Their entire oeriod of absence (from the datg 9f t"rmination until actual reinstatementl shall bd counted for gontinuitv of service an4 all conseouential bengfits. such as seniority and eliqibilitv for oromotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Resoondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and tr,ansoarent orocess for reoularizino the Aooellant Workmen within six -*"{ t6 SN,J wP 40375 2022 reoular emolovees in the oast. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist

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."

12. "54 "The Full Bench of the High Coutt, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary emptoyees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reasont that the activities arried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fetl 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 High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contradual 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, t7 SN,J wP 40375 2022 shatl be entitted to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.

13. The iudoment of the Apex Court reported in 2O1O(91 a under: l. fte decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 70.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC lt. In that case, a consfitution_encn of this court held 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' engalTement nor make their service permanent, and the High Courl' in exercise of iurisdiction 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 manneQ 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 Sfate or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing i i I I r ,i i ) i' I I i i i 18 SN,J wP_40375 2022 of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This court further held that a temporary, contractual, cagtal or a daily-1rvlgs employee does not have a legal right to be dade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 74 and 16 of the constitution. This court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "53. One asoect needs to be clarified, Therc may be cases where irregular aopointments (not illegal apoointmentsl as explained in S,V. Narayanappa intervention of orders of the couris or of tribunals. The question of reoularization of thd seruices of such employees mav have to be considered on merits in the light of the orinciples settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and ln the light of this iudament. fn that context the atnion of India. the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to teg,ularize as a one-time measure. the services of such lrr€gularly apoointed. who have worked for ten yeats or more in duly sanctioned posts but noi undCr cbver of orders of the courts or of tribunali and should fufther ensure that regular recruitm:enis, are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned ooets that require to be filled up- in cases whCre temporary emplovees or daily wagerc are Feing now emploved. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date, .... "5. ft is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 yearc or more 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 the employee and continued him in senrice voluntarily and continuously for more than ten yearc. t9 SN,J wP 40375 2022 (ii) T'he appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular, Where the appointments are not made or continued against sandioned posts or where the persons appoilnted do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the a,opointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was tuorking against sandioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi casts. a duty upon the concerned Oovernment or instrumen regularize the seruici:es of those irregularly apoointed Wplorees wno naa seruea Ar m without the benefiI or protection of any interim orders of aoufts or tribunals. directed th?t. such one-time measute must be set in motion witliin slx months from the date of its decision

6. Th'e term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its propi,r percpective, This woutd normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casua,l, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for m'ore than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subjed them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess fhe requi:;ite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their seruic:es.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umactevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still peding before Courts. Consequently, several depaftments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook 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, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 ol'the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wagetladhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous senrice as on 10.4.2006 without avaiting the i l I : i i i I I I : I I I -l l. ,,I .t i 20 SN,J wP_40375 2!/22 protection of any interim orders of coutts or tribunals. If any employer had hetd the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of umadevi, but did not consider the cases or,oai iiproyees who were'entitled to the benefit of para s3 of u^aiini) ihe emptoyer concerned shoutd consider their ases atso, iii Liitinii[ii ir the. one'time exercise. The one time exercise wiil be concruded only when all the _employees who are entitted to be consklered in terms of para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered, measure.

9.-These appeats have been pending for more than four years after the decision in umadevi. The Appeilant (Zila panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision ii umaaevi or thereafter.

70. The Division Bench of the High court has directed that the gases_9t respondents should be considered in acotrdance with 13.w. lhe onty further direction that needs be givei, in view of umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, oaiag-"inouu now undertake an exercise within six monthr, u g.i"rar one- time regularization exercise, to find out whethier t-h"re are any daily - *-** . .,-:.,,'.' --- -. ------.=iEiEiiirii..3*-,-., ; 2l SN,J wP 403',15 2022 wage./casual/ad-hoc emplQyees seruing th9 zila Panchayat and ,if i-iiitnur' tuch emptoyees (inctuding the respondents) fulfil! ie ntquirements me;tdned in para 53 of umadevi'.Itthey tulfill them,'their seruices have to be regularized. If such an exercise has e ready been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of re:;pondents 7 to 3.because of the pendency of these cases' inun in"i, cases shalt have to be ansidered in continuation of ihe said one time exercise within three months' It is needless to iay that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of iira ss of Umadevi, their servicr;s need not be regularised' If the ermployees who have compteted ten yegrs service do not poss(-'ss tde educationat qualillcations prescribed for the post, at 'th" ,:i^u of their appointment, they may be considered for iegularization in suitbbte lower posts. This appeal is disposed of acardingly. L4. In the iudoment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinqh and otherc v. State of Puniab reoorted in (2O13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption ef Special Police Officerc aPpointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authoraty of the State, but if the State didl not choose to Greate a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual l , I iS 22 SN,J wP_q375 2022 relationship, its action is arbitrary. rt also refused to bv the state. rt was hetd that the judqment in umadevi 23 SN,J wP 40375 2022 I I I n 1 (7) G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above menlioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years with(tut regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract wo* from the appellan$.

8. In the circumstances, refuslng the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the ',rribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circu,llstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appezl by directing that the appellants' seruices be regularised with effect from the date of their @mpleting their five year conti,tuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collertor/Chairperson & Othe6 vs, M.L, Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) scc.t80.

16. SCC 255, the Suoreme Couft held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permat regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to cnsune appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and 24 SN,J wP 40375 2022 M.L.Kesari extracted above. interfetgd with by this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.t2.2O22 passed in W.P.N o.276O2 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.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ot 2C,24. I I i I 25 SNJ wP 40375 2022

20. ! :l o I "100. The High Courts exercising thelr Jurisdiction under Artide 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the pow,-.r to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, 1 o

101. tn all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a publlc authority." 0 l n "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the servi:es of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Cour:s were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20,12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or wlrkman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the case:; on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and -"*Ilfd I I I t. v" ', 1., l! l. i 26 SN,J wP 40375 2022 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 dn 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.,' Bench of

21. The Court in its 7udqment dated 1 .O9.2(J17 oassed in W.P.No.27217 of 2(J17 reoorted in 2o18(2lAl-D paoe 282 at oara 16 and oara 1g observed as under:- '16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article L4L of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act ,2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, 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 /regularization 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 Union of India. The Supreme court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of L994 and executive orders such ab G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, 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 regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the iudoment in llanjula Easfiinf's case (suora), does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra); It i$, therefore. not oermissibte for ihe resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. 27 SN,J wP_40375 2022 criteria lald down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Urra Devi's case (suora). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 2l.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 20L4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aslde ryon+lts to consader Se_ oetitioners against the existino vacan'cies oi Work Iryleqors and aoooant the 3[g_criteria laid down in para No.53 of the judoment in lrre Oevrtcase fsuprat. lhisorocessmustbe ry$htn t*o months f.om th this order."

22. The Divt on Bench f this Cou in its Judoment dated 21.O4.2(J2O oassed in .A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 o 2(J19 UgL[LLNo.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2e2O(4rALD paoe 34lg!_Eras 45, 48 and oara 5O observed as under:- Y5. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) year! of servi,:e by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the 1,961 2000. They have been continuously working without any (:ourt orders in their favour from 1990 ti date. 48- rr is not known whv the lst resoondent as n6t Egsg g3Sltla riElfre115CngtcCi

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order:; dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent r6je&ing the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articlt:s L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the Bryndents are directed t petllloners' services from the date each of the oeiition,ersi egIEElete 10 vears of ser ."*ig 28 SN,J wP 4037s 2022 initial dates of their appointment. But, they shall not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said, exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of coov of the order."

23. accordance to law.

24. and extracted above. 29 SN,J wP_40375 2022 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.s & 6 c) The observations of the Apex coult in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ixzo2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scc page 3e6 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(Sc) 1209 (v) (2fJ17) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(e) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L79t (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xv'i) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this court dated 1o.o6.2o[3 passed in w.A.Nos.7gz of 2o1o and 954 of 2ot2 while uploading the Judgment dated og.og.2olo passed irr w.P.N o.24317 o? 2oo7 and c.c.No.4g of 2oog (referred to and extracted above) t 30 SN,J wP 40375 2022 e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in w.P.No.zlzll of 2otz'(referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of ZO2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No. 23057 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). g) rn the light of discussion'and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the prese-nt order. aooointment of the oetitioner and all conseouential 3l SN,J wP 40375 2022 \ \ \ order as to costs. 32 SN,J w 40375 2022 Miscellaneous petitions, if dfry, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ,t SD/- S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS J (For Her Ladyships Kind SECTION OFFICER PALLI NANDA to'1.-T-tle?rincipal Secretary, Pahchayathraj and Rural Employment Department, ,, i tp-taf,g, n5''S ecretariat, H yd e ra bad, State of Telangana' . 2. The Principal Secietary, Education Department, T-elangana Secretariat, , Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

3. The principal Secr4ary, Finance and Planning De,partment, Secretariat, :

4. The Commission€_r of School Education Departrnent, Govt. of Telangana, .. HYderabad "''." "'t'' S. The Zilla Praja Parishad, Nirmal District, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer. 6. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kuntala Mandal, Nirmal District-

8. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justbe and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

9. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court . Buildings, HYderabad. 1O.One CC to SRI CH GANESH' Advocate TOPUC] 11.ONE CC tO SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR'GRAM PANCHAYAT r: [OPUC] ,;.'1 :.

12.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

13.Two CD CoPies BSR TKS 4- "' I .... .. ',1 .l HIGI.T CICURT DATED: 20/08in025 ,-#. h l{r t ORDER WP.No.40375 of 2022 o (-) t * THE S ? 1 [[8 2f12fi * ALLOW{_I&Q T-HE WR|T PET|TTON, @ p{ .>\r\rs