Disposed

Ch. Shekar Babu v. The Vice Chairman

Telangana HC13 Aug 2025WP/11352/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two long-serving NMR/mazdoor employees of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority sought regularization as Class IV employees. The court held they were entitled to consideration under para 53 of Uma Devi notwithstanding the five-year service cutoff in G.O.Ms.No.212, relying on recent Supreme Court judgments on temporary employment, and directed the respondents to reconsider their cases in accordance

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine and reconsider petitioners' cases for regularization in accordance with law within a reasonable period; writ petition disposed without costs.

Ch. Shekar Babu Vs The Vice Chairman — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

a32s2l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:^'11352 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ch. Shekar Babu, S/o. Mallaiah (late) Age- 57 years, Occ- Office Subordinate, O/o. Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Warangal District Rl/o. H.No. 55-2-883, Kakatiya Colony, Bheemaram Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Hanumakonda Dist.

¶10

B. Laxminarayana, S/o. Narsaiah Age- 60 years, Occ- Office Subordinate, O/o. Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Warangal District R/o. H.No. 1-9-60, Julywada, Hanumakonda, Hanmakonda Dist.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban, Development Authority (KUDA), Warangal, Warangal District.

¶14

The State of Telangana, Govt of rep. by its, Prl .Secretary, (MA and UD) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RES'.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the ligh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- A) by declaring the entire action of the respondents, in not regularizing/ absorbing the services of the^petitioners as last^grade employees , even though, they are fully eligible, satisfied the criteria laid down by Honble Supreme court in Para 53 of its^judgment in 2006 (4) SGC (1), despite of their repeated requests is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of^power and contrary to the above^judgment including Division Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble court dt, 19.9.2017 in WP No. 2721712017 reported in 20'lB (2) AL.D 282 DB. B) And consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith consider regularization of services of petitioners as class -lV employees in terms of criteria laid down Para 53 of^judgment in 2006 (4) SCC (1) R/w Division Bench of this Hon'ble court dt. 19.9.2017 in WP No. 2721712017 reported 2018 (2) ALD

¶17

282 DB, w.e.f^{ther day on which,the petitioners completed 10 years,} of^service, with all consequential^{benefits thereon.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 forthwith consider regularization of services of petitioners as class- lV employees in terms of criteria laid down Para 53 of judgment in 2006 (4) SCC (1) R/w Division Bench of this Hon'ble court dt. 1g.g.2017 in WP No. 2721712017 reported 2018 (2) ALD 282D8.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA Counsel for the Respondents No.1: Ms. MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG, SC FOR KUDA Counsel for the Respondents No.2: AGP FOR SERVICES-|I!

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

Heard Sri Aravind Kumar Kata, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Mirza Safiulla Baag, learned Standang Counsel for Kakatiya Urban Development Authority appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned Assastant Government pteader for Services_fff, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶27

¶28

¶29

"...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:_

¶30

A) by declaring the entire action of the respondents, in not regularizing/ absorbing the services of the petitioners as last grade employees, even though, they are fully eligible, satisfied the criteria laid down by Honble Supreme court in para 53 of its judgment in 2006 (4) SCC (1), despite of their repeated

¶31

¶32

SN'J \.P.No.l lJ52 of l02J

¶33

requests is as highly^{illegal, arbitrary, unjust,} improper, colorable^{exercise of power and contrary} to the above^{judgment including Division Bench} ludgnrent of this^{Honblecourt dt, 19.9.2017in WP} No.2721712O17^{reported in 2018 (2) ALD282 DB.}

¶34

B) And consequently to^direct the^{respondents to} forthwith consider^{regularization} of^servicesof petitioners as class -IV employees in terms^of criteria laid down^{Para 53 of judgment in 2006 (4)} SCC^(1. ) R/w^{Division Bench of this Honblecourt dt.} 19.9.2017 in WP^{No. 272L7120t7reported 2018 (2)} ALD 282 DB, w.e.f the day on^{which,the petitioners} completed 10^years, of^{service, withall} consequential^{benefitsthere on and to pass..."}

¶35

3 The ca of the Detitioners. in brief, as oer the

¶36

¶37

¶38

i) The^{petitioners wereengagedas NMR employeesin 1990} and 1986^{respectively, and were later appointed,asunskilled} mazdoors in time^{scale pay in 1997. PetitionerNo.l was} subsequently converted as Attender in 2001, and^both petitioners were extended minimum time scale benefits in 2010. The services of the^{petitioners wereregularized vide}

¶39

I /

¶40

¶41

SN,J W.P.No.l1352 of 2023

¶42

proceedings dated 10.02. L997, but the same were cancelled on L2.09.2003.

¶43

ii) The petitioners earlier filed o.A.No.7099/20L2 before the Tribunal seeking service benefits, which was allowed on 04.09.20L2. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the respondents filed w.P.No. LLTL of 2013 before this court, which was allowed on 72.02.2013, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶44

iii) Though the petitioners were engaged against ctear vacancies, extended service benefits earlier, and are entifled to regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212 of tgg4 and G.O.Ms.No.LlZ, and though this Court in W.p.No.27217 of 2017 and w.P.No.47675 of 2018 directed reguraritation of similarly placed employees, despite repeated representations made by the petitioners, the respondents failed to act upon the same. Aggrieved by same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶45

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

¶46

._.-. -.I ! I (

¶47

¶48

SN,J w.P.No.l lJ52 of2023

¶49

5.............. Accordingly this^{respondenthas} cancelled the regularization orders of^the Petitioners along with other^{regularized persons} vide^proceedings A/ 125011996, dated.^12-09-2003 and continued them as^NMRs.

¶50

I TT ! I 1 7- . The l't Petitioner completed 3^years 6 months and the^{2nd Petitionercompleted} 4 years 10 months as on 25-11-1993^having qualification of Bth class by both the Petitioners.

¶51

h Subsequently on the request of the Petitioners, this Respondent has submitted the proposals to the Government for regularization of their services though they have not completed 5

¶52

)

¶53

SN,.I W.P.No.l1352 of 2023

¶54

years of service as on cut-off date 2S-L1-1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212

¶55

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of

¶56

the respondent No.1 places reliance on the averments made at paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.l and contends that the respondent No.1 had forwarded proposals pertaining to the regularization of the petitioners, however, the same had been rejected by the Government on the ground that the petitioners had not fulfilled the conditions as per the G.o.Ms.No.2l2, dated 22.0,4.1994 and G.O.Ms.N 0.249, I, dated o8.o7 -2oo4- subsequenfly, on the request of the petitioners, respondent No.1 again submitted the proposals to the Government for regularization of the petitioners' services, however, the Goverriment had not taken any steps in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court on the subject issue.

¶57

¶58

SN,J !l.P.No.l1352 of2023

¶59

6 aaaled Assistant Government Pleader a ppearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in view of the fact that the^petitaoners did not satisfy 'the criteria as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.0'4.1994, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as^prayed for in the present writ^petition and further that the case of the petitioners for regularization of services had been considered by the respondent No.2 and had been rejected since the^petitioners had not fulfilled the criteria as laid down under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and the petitioners had not challenged the said orders as on date.

¶60

¶61

'l n the oetitioners' reouest for the reoularization /

¶62

¶63

¶64

SN,J W.P.No.t I352 of²⁰²³

SN,J lV.P.No.l ll52 of 2023

¶69

r raar rir.a +zr ha fil IlaA tr6 tti --GZtc rl, I iial

¶70

¶71

i). i] 4

¶72

"12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," 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 in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regutar, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the

¶73

¶74

¶75

SN,J lV.P.No.llJ52 of202J

¶76

appellants tenure, underscorang indispensable nature of their work.

¶77

the

¶78

The claim by the resoondents that these were not reoular^posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bU the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning 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.

¶79

The landmark^judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (gth 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 wlre 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 underscore$^the principie that the nature of the work^perf6rmed, rather than the label assigned to the^worker, shiluld determine employment status and^the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiqhliohts the^judiciary's role in rectifying^such misclassifications and ensurino that^workers receive fair treatment.

¶80

II \I

¶81

¶82

SN,J W.P.No.l lJ52 of 202J

¶83

While the^judgment in Uma Devi^(supra) sought to cuftail 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" and "irregular" appointments. It categoricallv held that emplovees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in dulv sanctioned oosts and had served continuously for more than ten vears should be considered for regularization as a onetime 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, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoplication distorts the^judgment's spirit and puroose, effectivelv weaoonizing it against emplovees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶84

.rr

¶85

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 institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, prom<ite job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards

¶86

)

¶87

¶88

SN,J W.P.No.l lJ52 of 202.]

¶89

and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributang to the overall rment of labour practices in the country.

¶90

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:

¶91

i. The termination orders dated 27.1O.2018 are quashed;

¶92

ll.

¶93

would be counted for their oost-

¶94

ii) 2l nl ,nrE ;anar.lad in ? ,E tNGa lAL ia^{r</sup> d,.tiFrir?n}

¶95

n.artirrrl.a fha ralaraaf Nac lE +^ to

¶96

"15. It is manifest that the Apoellant^Workmen the Em r's failure furnish such rds-

¶97

¶98

SNJ u.P.\o.l lJ52 of 202J

¶99

dac nila A raalianc ta el aa-: !la wrE 'it i nferenc under ll-establ ished labour iurisprudence. Indian labour law stronolv^disfavors Deroet ual dailv-wa e or^{contractual enoaqementsln} circumstances where the work is^{Dermanent in} nature. Morallv and le llv, workers who fulfi! onooinq municioal reoui ments vear a r vear cannot e dismissed summarilv as dis^ensable, oarticularlv in the absence of a oenuine^contractor agreement. At this^juncture, it^{wouldbe appropriateto} recall the broader critique of^{indefinite"temporary"} employment^practices as done by a^{recentjudgement of} this court in ,aggo v. Union of India in the^following paragraphs:

¶100

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects^a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and^job security. In the^private sector, the rise of the^gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits,^job security, and fair treatment. Such^practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and tindermining 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.

¶101

It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,^particularly in^{governmentinstitutions,} often face multifaceted foims of exploitation.^While the foundational purpose of temporary^contracts may have been to address short-term or^seasonal rreeds, they have increasingly become^{a mechanism}

¶102

¶103

¶104

Sn-'J \Y.P.No. t 1352 of 2023

¶105

to 2024 SCC Online SC^{3826 evadelong-term} obligations owed to employees.^{Thesepractices} manifest in several ways:

¶106

. Misuse of "TemDora rv" Lahels: Emolovees and integral to the functioning of an institution ,, misclassification deprives workers of the dignitv, security, and benefits that^reoular emplovees are entitled to, desoite^performing identical tasks.

¶107

o 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,^{regardlessof the} quality or duration of their service.^. Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often^find themselves excluded from opportunities^{for skill} development,^promotions, or^{incremental pay raises.} They remain stagnant in their roles,^{creating a} systemic disparity between them^{and their regular} counterparts, despite their contributions^being equally significant.

¶108

. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: I Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing^{roles performedby} 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.

¶109

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often^{denied fundamental benefits} such as^{pension,providentfund, healthinsurance,} and paid leave, even^{when their tenure spans} decades. This lack of^{social security subjectsthem} and their families to^{undue hardship, especially in} cases of illness, retirement,^orunforeseen circumstances. "

¶110

¶111

SN,J $.1'.No.l lJ52 of!02J

¶112

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.

¶113

ln 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 adherlng to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were enoaoed in

¶114

¶115

¶116

SN.J W.P.No.l 1352 of 202J

¶117

meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:

¶118

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, 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 all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶119

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 period of absence^(from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.

¶120

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. ,)

¶121

initiate a fair and transparent^process for regularizino the Aooellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have^performed rraclc Tn rcaaaat6a ?alla liaa f lra that sanctioned vacancies for^{such duties exist} or are required. the Respondent^{Employer shal!} expedite all necessarv administrative^orocesses

¶122

¶123

SN,J lY.P.No.l1352 of202J

¶124

to ensure these longtime emplovees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waoes contrarv to statutorv and uitable norms.

¶125

ln 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."

¶126

iai) The Judqment of the ADex Court dated 19.08.2025 Dassed in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018 reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1735 in "Dharam Sinqh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another", in

¶127

a rticu !a r the relevant r N 1 nd2 r extracted hereunder:

¶128

"19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regu la risations, we issue the following directions: i!

¶129

i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Cominission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres. Class-III (Driver or

¶130

/ ,

¶131

¶132

SN.J W.P.No.l lJ52 of 202J

¶133

equivalent) and Class-IV^{(Peon/Attendant/Guardor} equivalent) without any caveats or^{preconditions.On} regularization, each appellant shall be^placed at not less than the minimum of the regular^pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the^{pay grade. For} seniority and promotion, service shall count from^the date of regularization as given above.

¶134

ii. Financial consequences and arrears:^Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances^{at the} minimum of the regular^pay-level for the^postfrom time to time, and (b) the amounts actually^{paid, for} the period from 24.04.2OO2 until the date^of regularization/retirement/death, as the case^maybe. Amounts already paid under^{previousinterim} directions shall be so adjusted. The net^arrearsshall be released within three months^{and if in defat{t,the} unpaid amount shall carry compou.nd^{interest at 60lo} per annum from the date of default until^payment.

¶135

and other terminal dues.^{The rbvised pensionand}

¶136

¶137

sN,J \.P.No.llJ52 of2023

¶138

terminal dues shall be^paid within three^months of this Judoment.

¶139

iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other apoellant who has representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment.

¶140

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment.

¶141

¶142

We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that lustice in such cases cannot . rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a

¶143

fc--. /

¶144

¶145

SN,J W.P.No.lll52 ot2023

¶146

constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles L4, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India."

¶147

A bare perusal of the averments made at para No.8 of the counter affidavit filed on behaff of the respondent No.1 indicates that .there is a clear admission at para No.8 of the counter affidavit fired on behalf of the respondent No.l that the Znd petitioner had been engaged as NMR from 2O.O1.1989 and the 1st petitioner had been engaged as NMR from 24.05.1990 and since, petitioners had not compteted five years of service as on 25.1L.lgg3t the cases of

¶148

¶149

SN,J W.P.No.l1352 of2023

¶150

the petitioners for regularization of services cannot be considered by the respondents.

¶151

This Court opines that petitioners are entiUed for consideration of petitioners' cases for regularization of petitioners' services in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and also in view of the clear admission at para No.8 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1't respondent that the 1't respondent had been engaged as NMR from 24.05.1990 and the 2nd petitioner as NMR from 2O.O1.1989, and hence, petitioners are entiUed for consideration of petitioners' cases for reqularization of petitioners' services as per. the observations at para No.53 of the judgment reported in 2006 (4) SCC Page 1 in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi without reference to the rejection orders passed by the Government on an earlier occasion.

¶152

¶153

¶154

SN,J W.P.No.l1352 o12023

¶155

This Court opines that rejection of the request of the petitioners by the Government on an earlier occasion and the pleas put-forth by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by the 1"t respondent that the petitioners failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria as laid down in G.O.Ms.N o.2L2, Fin.Dept, dated 22.O4.L994t since the petitioners had not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993 are untenable and rejected since the same is contrary to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated 19.09.2O!7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7 whereunder it is specifically observed at^para No.16 as under:-

¶156

¶157

It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra) was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No. 2t2t dated 22-O4-L994t were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the^practice of regularization and absorption of^persons, who entered service through backdoors by^giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for onetime absorption/ regularization of those, who were working for a^period of not

C-

SN,J w.P.No.l1352 of2023

¶162

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 1994 and executive orders such as G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, while giving directions in^para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u larization/a bsorption exist. The ore, Act 2ot 1994 and G.O.Ms.No. 212. dated 22.O4.1994. do not whittle own the width and the iudqment in Mrni ula B a hini /? cr rnr a^{</sup> doac tt lrrr,uarth r th tr sued Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in Uma Devi⁽¹ suDra). It is, therefore, not De rmissible for the resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. ulariza n ition r have, adm edlv, satisfied the criteria laid down o.53 h tinUm :] suDra).}

¶163

L2. This Court opines that the subject issue requires examination and reconsideration by the respondents ll herein in accordance to law, within a reasonabte period.

¶164

A bare perusal of the record also indicates that the petitioners have not represented to the respondents herein as on date pertaining to the grievance of the petitioners as put forth by the petitioners in the present writ petition as rightly

¶165

¶166

¶167

sN,J W.P.No.t1352 of 2021

¶168

pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶169

L4.

¶170

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

¶171

(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for Kakatiya urban Development Authority appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-rII, appearing on behalf of a respondent No.2,

¶172

(c) The averments made at paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit filed on behatf of the respondent No.l(referred to and extracted above),

¶173

¶174

SN,J $.P.No- l1352 of 2023

¶175

(d) The observations made in the Apex Court Judgments (referred to and extracted above and enlisted below),

¶176

i. (2006) 4 scc 1 ii. 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 iii. 2025 rNsc 144

¶177

iv. 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1735

¶178

v. Judgment, dated 19.09.20107 passed in W.P.No.272l7 ot 2Ol7 in UVSR Prasad and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2018(2) ALD Page 282, which refers to para No.53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi for consideration of the request of the petitioners thereunder for regularization of their services.

¶179

vi. Judgment, dated O8.O9.2O1O pqssed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 in Kodali Raju and Others Vs. APSRTC Hyderabad and Others reported in 2O11(1) ALD Page 234 as confirmed vide Division Bench^judgment of this Court, dated 1O.O6.2O13 passed in W.A.No.782 ot 2O1O and W.A.No.854 of 2OL2, which refers to para No.53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs, Uma Devi for consideration of the request of the petitioners thereunder for regularization of their services.

¶180

¶181

SN,J W.P.No.l 1352 of 2023

¶182

vii. The Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.No.Ol of 2O2O in O1 of 2O19 in C.Mahendar and Others Vs.Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University Hyderabad and Others reported in 2O2O(4) ALD Page 379, which refers to para No.53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi for consideration of the request of the petitioners thereunder for regularization of their services.

¶183

(e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at

¶184

para Nos. 5 to 12 of the present order.

¶185

¶186

¶187

SN,J \1'.P.No.llJ52 of 2023

¶188

as to costs.

¶189

( I