The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Jaggo v. Union of Indiar, while referring to State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER L cc_3182_2025 NBK, J IN TTIE GH COURT FOR STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYD RABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CONTE MPT CA ENo.3182 of 2025 ber 2025 Between:

1. Smt. L. Santhoshi AND

1. Sri Prof. I)r. P. Srikanth Babu, Secretary, Telangana Yogadhyayana parishad, Begumpet, l{yderabad. Petitioner ... Respondent ORDER: This tlourt by order dated 05.11.2024 in w.p.No.t9205 of 2015 allowed the'rvrit petition directing the respondent to regularise the services of the peiitioner-Smt. L. Santhoshi, who has been rendering services as a part- tirne Scavenger in the Gandhi Naturopathic Medical College, under the administrative control of the respondent, since 1983 (since 1990 as per the respondent). Alleging non-compliance with the Order by the respondent, the petitioner filed this contempt case.

2. The respondent filed a counter affidavit essentially contending that the Govemment has formulated a policy under G.o (p) No.l12, Finance & Planning (FV/.PC.I[), Department, dated 23.o7.lgg7,proposing to regularise the services of personnel who completed 10 years of service and continuing as of 28.1 1.1!)93, however, as the petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria under the said G.O., her case was examined and not found feasible to regularise. / I 2 cc_3182_2025 NBK, J

3. Heard Mr. G. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health & Family Welfare for the respondent. Perused the record

4. At the outset, and long story short, adrnittedly the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste, and she has been working as a part-time Scavenger in the respondent-Department, since 1983. It is to be bome in mind that though the petitioner may not be fulfilling the precise criteria of completion of l0 years as stipulated under G.O.(P) No.ll2 dated 23.07.1997, by the date of

1.993, the significant fact in the present case is that the petitioner has put in close to three decades of service in temporary capacity, by the date of disposal of the writ petition.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Jaggo vs. Union of Indiar, while referring to State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi2 protected the long-term temporary government workers by ruling that the essential and continuous nature of work would matter more than the "temporary" label, thereby ruled against the arbitrary termination of temporary employees, and directed their regularization to ensure fair pay, benefits, and job security. The judgment in Jaggo (supra) has set a precedent against exploiting temporary employees in public service. In the instant case, when admiuedly the petitioner-Smt. L. Santhoshi,

6. has been rendering continuous service in a temporary capacity for three decades, the respondent cannot take shelter under a policy of 1993 and continue to deny the benefit of regularisation even to this day despite utilising her services for three decades. Furthermore, even according to the respondent, the G.O.(P) No. ll2 dated23.07.1997 caters to regularisation of temporary 1 2024 tNSc 1034 2 (2006) 4 scc 1 I t {\\ 3 cc_3L82_2025 NBK, J employees who rendered 10 years of service by 1993; and even assuming that the petitioner's case does not fit in under that particular policy, it does not mean that lhe respondent is empowered to continue to utilise her services eternally for decades merely under the excuse that she did not fulfil the 1993 policy at thrrt time or that there is no extant policy to regularise her services, when the H,rn'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down in Jaggo (supra) that the Governrnent should be a model employer and should ensure fair pay and should not :xploit the temporary workers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra) further held that the spirit of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) cannot be curtailed under technicalities.

7. Furth,:r, even assuming that the petitioner's date of appointrnent is in 1990 (as per the respondents), admiftedly she has put in more than 35 years of service as of today. The respondent, except reiterating the contents of the same policy of 1997, could not place anything on record that permits the respondent tr continue to utilize the services from the petitioner in part-time capacity for cver three decades and ultimately deny regularisation. When the respondent il; anxious to take recourse to a policy of 1997 (which was framed specifically l<eeping in view the regularisation of temporary employees up until 1993), the respondent is short of answer with regard to his authority under which he is permitted to continue to the petitioner in part-time capacity for over three decades, and ultimately stash her away by denying regularisation. The facts in the present case lie in a very naffow compass, and they have bet:n adverted to in the writ petition while passing the Order dated 05.11 .2024. The respondent is estopped from re-iterating the same contentions rvhich were taken into consideration while passing orders in accordance with law, as per Jaggo (supra). 4 cc_3t82_2025 NBK, J E. This Court, by Order dated 05.11.2024, directed the respondent authorities to reconcile with the office records and notifl the date of ..rii appointment of the petitioner, as there is a difference in claim with regard to the date i.e., 1983 (according to the petitioner) and 1990 (according to the respondent-authorities), and after notiffing the date of appointrnent, the entire period from such notified date of appointrnent to the date of regularisation, was directed to be reckoned as qualiffing service for computing pension and retirement benefits of the petitioner. : 9. Furthermore, this Court passed the Order in the writ petition on 05.1 1 .2024, and the respondent tries to impress upon this Court, through the counter affidavit, that the petitioner has not been attending to duty and that she is "absconding" since April, 2025. This Court allowed the writ petition in November, 2024, in the open court in the presence of counsel for both the parties. That being so, the plea taken by the respondent that the petitioner has been "absconding" is ridiculous even taking the plea at face value. [t is beyond comprehension of this Court even to assume that the petitioner, a Scheduled Caste woman with three children fighting lor her bread and butter by serving in a temporary capacity under the respondent-Department as Scavenger for more than three decades and pleading the respondent authorities to regularise her in any Class-IV vacancy, and who contested the case and won the case, suddenly "absconds" and deserts her service. In this connection, it is relevant to advert to the specific plea of the petitioner in the reply affidavit that respondent No.3 in the writ petition (i.e., The Secretary, Telangana Yogadhyayana Parishad) has been harassing her and not allotting her the work since the allowing of the writ petition, and not paying her salary on time every month, and paying salary once in two months, at a time on , 19.05.2025. In this backdrop, it would suffice to say that the plea taken by the ! respondent in the counter affidavit in this contempt case that the petitioner is I \ t 5 cc_3182_2025 NBK, J "absconding;", cannot be countenanced in the absence of any reliable documentar/ material placed before the Court, and also in the wake of specific asseftion of the petitioner in the reply affidavit that she has been paid salary once in two months at a time on 19.05.2025. In that view of the matter, this Court takes note of the manner in which the petitioner is being made to run frorn pillar to post for her legal benefit of regularisation in the light of the Orders passe'd by this Court in the writ petition considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra), and Umadevi (supra). Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent has committed contempt of Court and is liable for punishment under Sections 10 and l2 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 . That being said, this Court is inclined to show some leniency for now, by not enforcing the entire provision of Sections l0 and l2 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971, however, imposing only the component of costs on the respondent. This Court is also inclined to fix a deadline for regularisation Orders to be passed by the respondent in this case.

10. Accorclingly, the Contempt Case is allowed, with a direction to the respondent trt issue appropriate orders regularising the services of the petitioner-Smt. L. Santhoshi, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Needless to reiterate that the date of appointment be notified by re,:onciling with office records, and the same be mentioned in the regularisation orders. The respondent shall pay Rs.5,000 towards costs, payable to the Association of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to Honourable Judges, High Court for the State of Telangana, within two weeks. Miscel laneousr petitions shall stand I To

1. /\P: //TRUE COPYII DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER 1 t One CC kr Sri c R1y Chandra Sekhar, i t,*1,",,ff# [\["J+:;r' i;''rin "no tdvggate tOpUCl Famirv w;ffa;, Hish court ror the ,-, ,., :!;t HIGH COL'RT DATED: 1ttl12l2021 ORDER CC.No.3182 ot zOZs HE1 S (J * 1 1 {:F I 202[ "l-- ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT CASE (D