High Court · 2025

Petition UnderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthat circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be p leased to .issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of relating to the Pr'ocd'No'e- tt/landamus by catling for the records dt.101812023 issued bY the 3rd resPondent and 324O2otB3/Lws/G H M C120231290 ' set aside the same bY declaring as illegat, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the facts as admitted in counter affidavit in WP No.817gt2}17 and consequentlY d irect the respondents to regularize the servtces of the petitioners in terms of law laid down by the Honourble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's Case RePorted rn 2006 (4) SCC 1 as followed by this Honourable Court in WP No.2721712017 , dt. 1 glgl2l17 Reported in 2018 (2) ALD 282 from the dateofcompletionofl0yearswithaltattendantbenefits. I.A.NO:1 OF 2023 petition Under section 151 Cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the craim of the petitioner for regurarization of their services in terms of law laid down by the Ho'ble Supreme court in uma Devi s case Reportedin2006(4)SCclasfollowedbythisHonourableCourtinWP No.27217t2o17dt.1glgl2o17Reportedin201B(2)ALD2B2severalcaseswithout reference to impugned order dt. 1}t8t2o23 ' pending final disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI P'RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CounselfortheRespondentNo'2:G'PFORFINANCEANDPLANNING CounselfortheRespondentNos.3&4:SRIG.NARAYANA,ScFoRSERVICE MATTERS OF GdT4-iAND AGRICUfrURAL MARKET COMMITTEE The Court made the following ORDER 3 SN, J wP_35228 2023 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard sri p. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for MA& UD appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government pleader for Finance and planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri G. Narayana, learned standing counsel for service Matters of GHMC and Agricultural Market committee, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2 praver as under: "-..to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the procd.No.e-324020/8.3/Lws/3HMC/2023/ 290, dt.10-8-2023 issued by the 3d respondent and set aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the facts as admitted in counter affidavit in wp No.B179l2017 and consequenuy direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of law laid 4 Sr"t. J wP 15228 202:l down by the Honourble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's Case Reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 as followed by this Honourable Court in WP No.272t7/2OL7, dt. l9-9-2O17 Reported in 2018 (2) ALD 282 from the date of completion of 10 years with all attendant benefits and pass...".

3. The respondents are not regularizing the services of the petitioners from the Clate of completion of 10 years of service in spite ol' repeated request made by the petitioners. The petitioners relied on para No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 & 4 in W.P. No.B179 of 2077 wherein it was specifically admitted that there are existing vacancies in Uppal Kalan Circle. But the 3t"d respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 10.08.2023 rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that there are no existing vacancies to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 10.08.2023 issued by the 3|.d respondent, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD 5 (A) SN, J wP 35228 2021 3td resoondent is extracted he under: .PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMTSSIONER, GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PRESENT: SRI D. RONALD ROSE., I.A.S., coMMrssroNER, HGMC. Proc.No. e-324O2O / B3l LWS/GHMC/2O23129O, dated 10.08.2023 Sub: Estt.GHMC - Labour Welfare section - Sri D. Raju & (39) others NMRs., Circle No.02, Uppal, GHMC - Requested to implement the orders dt.13.01.2023 in W.P. No. 8179 of 2017 - Examined - No existing vacancies - Rejected - Order Issued . Ref:- ( 1) Orders dr .13.01.2023 in Wp No.8179 of 2017 of the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad. (2) Representation dated 16.02.2023. (3) Remarks of the Deputy Commissioner, circle No.02, Uppal GHMC. *** ORDER . In the reference 2"d cited, Sri D Raju & (39) others, pH workers, Uppal Circle, GHMC have requested to regularize their servlce as per the Orders dt. 13.01.2023 in Wp No.8179 of 2Ot7 of the Hon,ble High Court and in terms of law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Courtrin Umadevi's case. Sri D Raju & (39) others were working on NMR/dally wages in . the erstwhile Uppal Kalan Municipality. Subsequently Uppal kalan Municipality was merged in Municipal Corporation of ityderabad, Further, the petitioners have filed OA. No.3902/1995, OANO 3905/1995, dt:31.07.1995 and OA No.6826/96 dt..Z2.O4.Lgg7 before the Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal for regularization of services in terms of G.O.Ms. No 212, dti 24.04.t994. Accordingly, the erstwhile Uppal Municipality has extended the benefit of minimum time scale vide Proc. No.2212/95-8, dt:19.03.1996, proc. No.8/3674/96, dt: 20.08.L997, Proc No.B/1410/98; dt :08.08.1998 & proc. No. BlL470/98, dt: 26.09.1998 of the Commtssioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality and thereafter as per the orders of APAT vide OA No. 7595/2005 d. 15.09.2006, granted annual grade increments vide proc. No. CUt278/2005, dt. 22.Ot.2007 of the Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality, RR Dist as per approvar of the commissioner ti Director, 6 SN, J wP i5228 2021 Municipal Administration Departfilent M3,dt. 19.12.2006: vide Lr.Roc.No.20969/2006- Further, Sri D Raju & (39) others have filed WP No.8179 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana for regularization of their services in terms of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.24377/2OO7 as confirmed in the WA No.782l2010. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court has disposed off the Writ Petition on dt. 30.01.2023 and operative portion of the order as follows: "The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioners in light of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V. Umadevi and oihers (cited 1 supra); and Division Bench of this Court passed in WP No. 27217 of 20L7, dated 19.09.2017 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnakata Vs. Uma Devi read at para No-53 as follows: "The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. second is to ensure that the departments/instru menta lities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wage/ad- hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeiting the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitm-ent and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10'4'2006 itne Oute of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization' The fact t.hattheemployerhasnotundertakensuchexerciseofregularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertakenonlyinregardtoalimitedfew,willnotdisentitlesuch employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.'' As per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, StateofKarnatakaandothersV.UmadeviandothersthattheState Governments were permitted as a one time measure to consider regularization of services of irregularly appointed persons who have 7 SN. J \\,P 15228 2023 worked for 10 years against duly sanctioned vacant posts without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization, In the instant case there are no such existing vacancies and the Petitioners were worked on daily wage basis. They were not appointed against any sanctioned/vacancy posts. They were continued on the strength of Tribunal orders and paid salaries in the time scale and granted in crements/other benefits as per the directions of APAT from time to time. Hence, as per the paragraph No.53 of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex-Court in State of Karnakata Vs: Uma Devl, Sri D Raju & (39) others are not entitled for regularization of their services. As there are no existing vacancies. In the judgment of the Hon,ble High Court in Wp.No. 27217/2017, dt:19.09.2017 as per para No-18 it is held that ', For the aforementioned reason, order, dated:27.06.2017, in O.A No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the Writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners This process must be completed within two m onths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order", Further in present case the circum stances are different from the issue mentioned in W.p No.272t7/2017. To Sri D. Raju & (39) others, who are filed in W.P. No. 8179 of 2Ot7 (through the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.02, Uppal, cHMC). Commissioner, GHMC 8 SN, J wP :i5228 2021 (B) The order of this Court ated 3O.O1.2O23 oassed in W.P. No. 8179 ot 2OL7 in oarticular oara Nos.4 and 5 r "4. In view of the submission made by both the learned counsel. this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioners in the light of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V. Umadevi and others (cited l't supra); and Division Bench of this Court passed in WP No.27217 of 2017, dated 19.09.2017 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. preferably, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. 5. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs". (c) "...The judgment rendered in Umadevi case further was explained in State of Karanataka v. L. Kesar (supra), wherein it is stated that the true effect of the direction at paragraph 53 of judgment in Umadevi case is that all persons who have worked for more than 10 years as on 10.4.2006 without the protection of any interim order of any Court or Tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. 9 (D) SN. J \\,P 15228 2023 "The learned Single Judge in his elaborate judgment discussed applicability or otherwise of the decisions of the Apex Court and other High Courts referred to therein and relying on the decisions of the Apex Court applicable to the facts oithe present case, rightly arrived at the conclusion and allowed the Writ Petitions. In the process, the learned Judge held that Manjua Bhasini's case (supra), on which the appellants have placed reliance, has no application to the facts of the present cases inasmuch as regularization of the services in the said case were in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22.4.1994 and its applicability from a particular date. Even the reliance placed by the appellant in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Man Singh {(2012) 1 SCC 558}, has atso no appticarion to the facts of the present cases inasmuch as the respondents- employee therein have merely put in 240 days only unlike the case of the respondents herein. Further, the provisions of the Act 2 of 1994 have also no application inasmuch as the respondents were reinstated through the award of the Labour Court which ultimately attained finJtity. tt is also noteworthy to state that even after the Act 2 of 1994 came into force, the appellant-ApSRTC regularized the services of the temporary employees/labour either in term of its own circulars/orders or by way of Courts orders. Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached l0 SN, J wP 35228 202.1 the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu lars dated 20.12.t9A9, 11.09.1992,, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract employeesJt in these aooeals. Viewed thus, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the Writ Appeals are dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs". (E) "5. It is to state that the applicant and 28 others were appointed initially as NMRS in between years 1989 to 1992 and since they have not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993 which is the cut off date specifically mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 212 Dtt 22.04.t994 and as such they are not entitled for regularization of their service. Sri. D. Raju & 39 others were working as NMR/daily wages in the erstwhile Uppal Municipality. Subsequently, Uppal Kalan Municipality was merged in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Further, the petitioners have filed O.A. NO' wp-rszza-?|ii 3902/1995, OA NO: 3905/1995 Dt: 31.07.1995 and OA NO: 6826196 Dtl.22.O4.1997 before the Hon,ble Ap Administrative Tribunal for regularization of services in terms of G.O. Ms. No: 212 Dt: 24.04.1994. Accordingly, the erstwhile Uppal Municipality has extended the benefii of minimum time scale vide proc. N: 2212/95-8 Dt: 19.03.1996, Proc. No: 8/3674/96 Dt: 20.08.1997., proc. No. 8/1410/98 Dt: 08.08.1998 & proc. No. 8/1410/98 Dr: 26.09.1998 of the Commissioner, Uppat Kalan Municipality and thereafter as per the orders of the APAT vide OA No. 7595/2005 Dt: 15.09.2006 granted annual grade increments vide Proc. No. CttZTB/2005 Dt: 22.OL.2007 of the Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality, RR Dist. as per approval of the Commissioner & Director, Municipal Administration Dept., vide Lr. Roc. No.20969/2006-M3 Dt: t9.t2.2006. a) The subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court dated 08.09.2010 passed in W,P. No.24377 of Z0O7 and C.C. No. 48 of 2OOB in Kodali 12 2 SN, J wP 15228:t023 D A

2010. b) On an earlier occasion, the petitioners had approached the Court questioning the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date of completion of 10 years of service. This Court disposed of the said W.P. No.B179 of 2Ol7 on 30.01.2023 directing the respondents to consider the regularization of services of the petitioners subject to the satisfaction of criteria as laid down in Para No.53 of the Judgment in Uma Devi's case (cited supra) and further the entire process was directed to be completed within elght (B) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. c) In spite of the specific directions of this Court dated

30.01.2023 passed in W.P. No.8179 of 20L7 and in spite of a clear admission in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the said Writ Petition No.B179 of 2017 at para No.5 that there are last grade vacancies in the Corporation but the request of the petitloners herein had been rejected solely on the ground that there are no existing vacancies and that the petitioners had worked on daily wage l3 SN, J wP 35228 2023 basis and further that petitioners are not appointed against any sa nctioned/vacancy posts. d) The aforesaid pleas are pleas which are raised only to deny petitioners legal entitlement and the same are not valid in the eye of law. h

6. Learned Standing Counsel for Service Matters of GHMC and Agricultural Market Committee, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, placing reliance on the averments made at para Nos.5 and 9 of the counter affidavit fired on beharf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present writ petition (referred to and extracted above) contends that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

7. A bare perusal of the record indicates that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.p. No.B179 of 2017 fired by the petitioners on an earrier occasion seeking regularization of their services, there is a crear admission ) / l4 SN. J wP 35228 202.] that there are last grade vacancies in the Corporation' A bare perusal of the record and also the lmpugned proceedings, dated 10.08.2023 issued by the 3'd respondent indicates that the request clf the petltioners had been rejected mechanically. unilaterally in a very routine casual manner without examining the case of the petitioners for regularization as per the petitioners' request, duly examining all the required documents in support of the petitioners' case holding that there are no existingvacanciesandhencethepetitionersarenotentitledto claim for regularization of services. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present W'P' No' 35228 of ZO23 does not indicate a plea pertaining to rejection of petitioners' case on the ground that there are no existing vacancies. But however, curiou$ly several otlrer pleas are put forth stating that there are no such cadre strength and that the petitioners worked on daily basis but not appointed through sanctioned posts and further thbt they were continued as per principles laid down by the Apex Court in

8. This Court opines that 3'd respondent admittedly neither apptied its mind to the facts of the case nor l5 SN, J wP ji22ti 202i looked into the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P. No.8179 of 2OL7 and raised several other pleas in the counter affidavit for not considering the cases of the petitioners for regularization. The said pleas curiously do not reflect in the order impugned vide Procd. No.e-324O2O/B3/ LWS/ HGMC/ 2023129O, dated are no existing 1O.08.2023 and the plea that vacancies however, is taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present W.p. No.35228 of 2O23. Therefore, this Court opines that the subject issue needs to be considered afresh by the 3'd respondent herein duly taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court in the various Judgments given below pertaining to regularization of services of the petitioners herein. 9 "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 t6 SN, J wP 35228 2023 services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to 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 entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entltled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular establishment and the services rendered bv them e establishment shall be cou nted as oualifvino service for ouroose of oension." w rk-cha d t h

10. The Aoex Co rt in the case of "Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Associatio n Vs. State of reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid Ka rnata k a temoorarv or ad hoc service for lono period and have to treat such Derson s as reoular one.

11. Para No.53 of the of the Judomentof theAoex Court i". dated in the "S te of Karnataka and others Vs. Umad o6)4sCC1ise 10.04.2006 reoorted in (2 xtracted hereunder: - l7 SN, J wP 35228 2023 There mav "53 o e asDect need to be clarifi where irregular appointments (not allegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa f1967 (1) SCR 1281, Na niunda oDa r1972 (1) SCC 4O9I and B.N. R.N. Naoa raian f 1979 (4) SCC sO I and referred to in ra 15 Itat<ts mi.!ht hr vaha an marla conti ued to work for ten intervention of orders of t rs or fno courts or of tribunal but without the . The :nd lha arnnlar;aa v h I above referred and in the lioht of h Un eir instrumentalities should take t is Judoment. In DS tO reo larize e-tim w n san ioned o e reoul r recruitm nts are un ertaken to fill those vacant av w but not under cover of alders rv! t h n n r m months fro m this date..... L2. The J udqment f the Aoe Court dated 2().12. o24, reDo ed in 2024 Law Suit(sc) 1 O9 in "J qqo An others v. Union of India and others", and the relevan t ra r os.12 2 2 8 hereu nder: '12. Despite being labelled as ..part-time workers," the appellants performed these essentaal tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. fheir engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsi bilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did 18 SN. J \\jP 15228 2023 not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

13. Th e claim bv the non.l6nt( that thesG were not reoular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the worl< oerformed bv the aooellants was oerennia! and fundamental to the functionino 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 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliohts t e iudiciarv's role in re fvino such misclassifications and ensurino that workers 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 principles are often misinterpreted l9 SN, J wP 35228 2023 nqaqed ime m rs should be conside one-t or misapplied to deny |egitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It cateooricallv held that emolovees in irregutar ADDOI ntments, who were in dulv sanctioned oosts a nd had serv d continuou slv for more than ten v reoularization as a asure; 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, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoolication distorts the judgment,s spirit and ouroose, effectivelv weaponizino it aoainst emoloyees who have rendered indispensabte services over 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 morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government anstitutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principtes 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 contrabuting 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: 20 SN. .I wP_35228_202i i. The termination 27 .LO.20tB are quashed; orders dated ii. back on duty forthwith and their servic$ reoularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any oecuniary b-enefits/back waoes for the oeriod they have not worked for bu[ would be entitled to continuitY of services for the said neriod and the sanre rarorrlrl he cou f heir noqt- retiral benefits."

13. ,, para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunderi '15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several years. sometimes soanning rnore 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 cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall 2t SN, J wP l522lt 2023 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 employmeni 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.

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: 3 lsuse of "Tc Dorarv" Labels: Em r . 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 22 SN. J wP 35228 2023 employees often find themselves excluded from 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 performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited worl<ers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . 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 famllies to undue hardshlp, especially 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 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. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant 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 thev 23 SN, J wP 35228 2023 I I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellanl Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes. including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judg ment. 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 theii actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. 24 V SN. J wP 35228 2023 tar. cr rah dr rliac aru icf j6^ttir6A

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."

14. "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- scale, 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 employee, who fell in either of the two exceptionq were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the fuil 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 25 s2t i 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. wP,3522s (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 daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,, 15: r u nder:

10.4 .2006

4. in 2006 rul 7). In that case. a Constitution Bench 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- 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 26 S\.- J wP 35228 202i 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 instrumenta lities, 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 Articles 14 and 16 of the Constituticn. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "5. It 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 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the 27 SN, J wP 35228 2023 State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would 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 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 daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or 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 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be 28 SN". J wP -15228 2023 considered for regula rization.. merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should considcr all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 y.ears of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Untadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should considcr their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The orte time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in tenns of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. Dractice of emolovino on dzilw-waoe/ad- rnf-Law\

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of 29 SN, J wP 35228 20211 regularization within six months of the decision in llmadevi or thereafter- 1O. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gadag shoutd now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daity wage/casua l/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 fulfilt them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken 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 fulfi 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 appointmenL they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeat is disposed of accordingly.

16. 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposat their services were made available. It hetd that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those nks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary 30 sN, l wP 15228 202i control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadr€ but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to m decades. It h ld that "sanctioned oosts d not fall from nC naad D -r:F^ +^ r !aszlarri lralzl fl.rl *ha I I :t n n n 31 SN, J wP_35228_2023 bv the state. rt was held that the Judoment in umadevi Gfrta inef rrrrrranf =lifiac nailhar t7. The Judqment of the Aoex court reoorted in 2o15 f, paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) 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 appeltants and continued to extract work from the appellants. B. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.o. on the ground that the appeltants 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 appettants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their iive year continuous service as was laid down by this court in District C_ollector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (S) SCC 4BO. 12 SN. J u,P i522ti 202-i

18. SCC 265. the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exceptiou carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and r V

19. f 1at1 4 l7 caa aaa cirnilr rriarer r-rlzaa +}ra ,t SN, J wP 3522A 2023

20. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.t2.2O22 passed in W.P. No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertains to regularazation of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda Distract, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated

10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024. 21, TEl la:il ir Trust V State of Maharash a and ers" n "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of manda mus, but

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.,,

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 1O.O6.2013 passed in W.A. Nos.7B2 of 2O1O and 854 ol 2Ot2 while upholding the Judgment dated O8.09.2O10 34 SN,.I wP i5228 2021 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.4B of 2008 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that tlre services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.L2.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual 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 pi-oper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

23. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2Ot7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD page 282 at para 16 and para 18 observed as under:- '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 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 35 SN, J wP 15228 2023 enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in tJma 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 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the judgment in Irlanjyla Bashini's case (supra), 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 is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have. admittedly. satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in LJma Devi's case (supra ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2Ot4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in LJma Devi,s case (supra). This process must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.,,

24. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 at paras 45, 48 and para SO observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2O00. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 48. It is not known why the 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi,s case (supra), as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts 36 SN..I wP i5228 2021 and Tribunals as on LO.4.2006'and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services.

50. Accordingly, the writ petitiorr 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 hasis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to regularize on one-time basis petitioners' services ft-om the date each of the petitioners complete 1.0 years of service on daily wages from the 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 copy of the order."

25. In the counter affidavit filed bv the resoondent Nos.3 .P. No.8t79 ot 2A 7 filed bv Sri D. and 4 in others. the resoondents 3 and 4 soecificallv averrgd at iu and 39 Dara No.s as under: "5. It is-submitted that no doubt they are last grade vacancies in the Corporation but when the petitioners have not put in 5 years of service as such they are not eligible for regularization of their services in the existing vacancies. This aspect is also considered by the Supreme Court in Manjula Bashini's case where the Hon'ble Supreme court also considered all the aspects and observed that a person wlro completes five years of service by 25.11.1993 alone for regularization".

26. This Court opines that the specific plea put forth by the respondent No.3 in rejecting the petitioners case on the ground 37 sN. .l wP 35228 2021 that there are no existing vacancies is contrary to the averments made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.p. No.B179 of 2Ol7 referred to and extracted above and hence the said plea is rejected as u ntena b le. 27, This Court opines that all the pleas put forth in the proceedings impugned procd. No.e-324O20/ 83/ LWS/ GHMC. 2O23/29O, dated 10.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 had in fact been considered in the various Judgments (referred to and extracted above) and held to be untenable and rejected. This Court opines that the respondent No.3 cannot reject petitioners request for regularization of petitioners services contrary to the observation oF this Court in its Judgment dated

08.09.2010 passed in W.p. No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C. No.48 of 2008 reported in 2011 (1) ALD page 234, (referred to and extracted above) which had in fact been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A. No.7B2 of 2010 (referred to and extracted above). 2A. This Court opines that all the pleas put forth by the respondent No.3 in the order impugned dated 10.08.2023 enlisted hereunder had in fact been considered in the aforesaid 38 SN. J wP 15228 2023 Judgments. This Court opines that the specific reasons indicated in the order impugned dated 10.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 are entitled hereunder. (i) There are no existing vacancies (ii) Petitioners worked on daily wage basis. (iii) Petitioners were not appointed against any sanctioned/vacancy post.

29. This Court opines that the aforesaid reasons indicated in the order impugned passed by the respondent No.3 are intended only to deny the benefit oF regularization of petitiorlers services and the said pleas are totally contrary to the observations of Apex Court and this Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above). Though at para No3 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the present writ petition it is stated that the petitioners have not completed five year of service as on 25.11.1993 which is the cut off date specifically mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.L994 and as such the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of petitioners service. The said pleas however, are not reflected in the order impugned dated 10.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 and the said pleas are also held to be untenable in view of 39 SN, J wP 35228 202i the observations at para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi.s case.

30. This Court oo nes that resoonde t No.3 r r:l iI.FI'I TN t No-3 as held the A Court i h *a. The nd eo allv relevant matter is that r affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, l. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 10BB : AIR 1952 SC 161 : 40 SN. J wP l5l2lr 2023 "Public orders, publlcly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders nrade by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becomtno better as thev qrow older." hat i

31. resoon ents failed to discharoe th ir dutv in exa mininq the reouest of the oetitioners for reqularization of e e nNM who a waqe basis and to treat the temDorarv servtces oetiti ners in the last qrade Dost as reqular one for all r nti r w eriod i incre ent revise from time to time from the date of ADDO ntment of the oetitio ers, ln a rdance to law.

32. This Court ooines that Detationers are entitled for rs' case for orant of the relief as deration Detit r h o xC n varl n 4t S^'. J wP .15228 2021 (re rred to and extra above) and the vaew of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judqments referred to and xtracted a bove

33. This Court o ines tha the reo est of the Detitio ners for reou la rization of oeti oners' serwic t t rele ed on noe xistino va ncies a dont e qround that etitaoners had not com Dleted minimu m period of 5 vears as on 25.1 1.1993. rnce r e orou d that there a s s t e h n e1 1 and hence all the itioners adm dlv had worked for t h tion r r a s n z o r 6 h rtheo bservations of E ADex Court in the case of of Pu ta b and Others Vs. Jaoiit Sinoh and oth rin Sta particular at oara No.54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2) and (3r ti n in the various judqments of the Aoex Court(referred to a o r e e h d m t u d A 42 2ofL994 and G.O.M s.No.212, dat d 22.O4.L99 whittle down the w dth and the iudoment in Maniula SN, J wP 35228 2023 4 do not hini's s w r the r h di rectio ns issued bv he Suoreme urt in Dara o.53 of its iu oment in ma Devi's case.

34. Takin o into nsideratio n:- (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4, (c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present writ petition in particular, para nos.5 and 9 (referred to and extracted above) (d) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: (i) (2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 1+J SN, J wP_35228_2023 (iv) 2o24 Law Suit(SC) 1209 (v) (2fJ17) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(e) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC t7gt (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 SCc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supr:eme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD pag e 282 (xvi) 2O20(4)ALD pag e 319 (xv) !978 (1) SCC 4Os (e) The Division Bench order of this court dated 10.06.2013 passed in w.A.Nos.7B2 of 2o1o and 954 of 2oL2 while uploading the Judgment dated og.o9.2010 passed in w.P.No.2437z of 2oo7 and c.c.No.4g of 2oog (referred to and extracted above), (f) The Division Bench order of this court dated 19.09.2017 passed in w.p.No.2z2Lt of zoLT (referred to and extracted above), (g) The Division Bench order of this court dated 21.o4.2o2o passed in r.A.Nos.l of zo2o in 1 of 2019 and w.P.No.23(J57 of 2o19 (referred to and extracted above). I ( 44 SN, J wP 35221t 2023. (h) Tlre discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos,S to 35 of the present order. The Writ on is allowed and t c tm rru o ned t o lt n n ! 2 n :l I ( 2 2 t l 45 SN, J wP_35228_2021 1 de des of Muni oal -,1 n r Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. '-s"- //TRUE COPY// REKHA RANI -sol-e. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR oSECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) To

1. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, MA and UD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Cirde, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. I r, Justice and Company

5. 11 L.R. Copies. r^_. , r-r^^ nr rnr 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Laui , t[3'3;]ili:[iungrnu Advocates Association Library' Hish court ,. ?il'lt5E:,:'jF'EBf y g PL t?y N AN D uRBlf!-P.EVELoPT/r ENr' Hig h e rwo ccs to Gf;b"i iiNArfuE.fririi?iArrrNrr.rc, Hidr, court ror the state or r' 1 0. o ne cc to s R l''p"H;6TfiVEN rinn nr o DY,.A$ yo-cate IO P U C l 11 one cc to sni b nnirivaIrygEF6[ stHvrcE rrrintrERs-oF GHMC AN D AG R I C U iiu ilAi TViAilKtf 6OMI'}I ITET' RdUO"AIC (O P U C ) 12 Two CD CoPies Court for the Staie of Telangana at Hvderabad' [OUTI i"rr*i., at HYderabaO t9-l]J]- SA BS C .C.TOI)AY i c.J i I ( * THE S IA 2 2 lnH 2625 Z * HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 ORDER WP.No.35228 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1t.