M. Ram Reddy and 4 others Vs State of Telangana and 14 others

N- Laxmaiah, S/o. Kistaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Shankarampet (A) It/andal, Shankarampet (A) Mandal, Medak District.

¶10

P. Ramulu, S/o. P. Laxma Gaud, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Narsapur lrilandal, Narsapur lt4andal, IVedak District.

¶11

P. tt4ohan, S/o. Balaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Chinnakodur I\4andal, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶12

A. Balaiah, S/o. A. Rajamallaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Siddipet lVandal, Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

State of Telangana , Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶18

5 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Kamareddy District.

¶19

C) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, tVedak District.

¶20

7 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Siddipet District.

¶21

IB The District Panchayat The District Panchayat Raj Raj Officer, Kamareddy Officer, Medak District.District. 'l0.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddipet District. 1 1 . The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pitlam Mandal, Kamareddy District.

¶22

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Shankarampet (A) Mandal, Medak District.

¶23

13.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. '14. The tt/andal Parishad Development Officer, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶24

1 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Siddipet tvlandal, Siddipet District.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Coud may be

¶27

pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction or more particL I rrly one in the Nature of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents it ro n-reg u larizing the services of the petitioners in terms of the Hon'ble Suprem: Courl^judgments and not regularizing the services of the petitioners on parc par regularized the service of one of the members of the union Sri. iVld. iv asood Ali, Bore well lVlechanic (Hand Pump lt,4echanic), working at Both, Ad^I lbao District through G.O.Rt No.182, Dtd.l4.03.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, high iscriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, uncon stitutio nal, unlawf r and in violatio n of Articles 14, 16, 19,21 and 23 of the Constitution of lndia rnd in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and against to a catena of^,J dgments of an Apex Court and set aside the same and consequently direr; the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in purview of the . rdgments of an Apex Court with consequential benefits

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶29

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the c i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in dupport of the petition, the High CoLr t may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the salaries to the petiti ; rers in terms of the Judgment of an Apex Court in the case of State of Punjzrl Vs Jagjit Singh and others, (C.A.No.213 of 2013 and its batch), Dtd .26.10.21l6 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR GENERAL A )MINISTRATION

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4, 8to10: GP FOR SE:l IVICES ll

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to7, 'l1to15: SRI R. Ctl, rNDRA SHEKAR, SC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

S .'.J wP 1384 201-l

¶35

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.1384 OF 2023

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of respondent Nos, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 and Sri R.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, to 7, 11 to 15.

¶39

2 Thp netit toner^q ann roach ed thisCorrrt seckino the

¶40

D!:aver as under:

¶41

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one rn the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in non-regularizing the services of the petitioners in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court^judgments and not regularizing the services of the petitioners on par at par regularized the service of one of lhe members of the union Sri Md. Masood Ali, Bore well Mechanic (Hand Pump Mechanic), working at Both, Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No.182, Dtd: 14.O3.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, high discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, unconstitutional, unlawful and in violation of Articles ),4, L6, L9, 27 and 23 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and

¶42

4

¶43

S..I \P ltsl l0l3

¶44

against to a catena of Judgments ofan Apex Crr rt and set aside the samc and consequently direct the respond l ris to regularize the servri.es of the petitroners in purvrew of the udgments of an Apex Court with consequential benefits and ; ass such other order..."

¶45

Learned counsel appearinq on b,r half of the etitioners la cin reli nce on h V rm t i made in the fti avit filed in su ort of h r n writ petition erta in in tn a rti r h es rendered bv Detitioners with the respondents herein for more than a de ade contends tha he e r titled for the relief as Draved for in the present writ oetiti(I 1.

¶46

PERUSED THE RECORD:.

¶47

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

¶48

4, Learn ed counsel aDDearino on b ( half of the oetitioner submits that the subiect issue i1 the oresent ca s u r cover t his Court, dated 08. 9.2010 assed i Cr'' reDorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paoe 34 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O, dated 10.06.201 3 and also order, dat(t I 19.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.No.2721 7 of 2OL7 reoorted in :018⁽²⁾ ALD

¶49

)

¶50

SN.J wP 1384 2021

¶51

Paoe 282 and also the order, dated^2L o4.2020 Dassed in w.P.No.2 3O57 of 2019 reoorted in^202O (⁴ )^{ALD Pa} o^e37 9.

¶52

Learned stan dinq counsel appearinq on behalf of^the respon d e t Nos.5 to 7, 1 1 to 15 submits that^the o rreva n Ce of the Detitio ner as D ut-fo hi n the D resent Wr t Petition had not been addressed to the^resDondents herein as on date and therefore, the oetitioners^{ca nnot} complain inaction on the o rt of^{resoondentsherein in} consid eri o the orievance o the Detitioners^{and hence,} the relief as oraved for bv t e oetitionersⁱⁿ t^{e oresent} wit itio n cannot be^qranted a nd no^{Mandamuscanbe} issued aoainst the resoondents hereunder^{as souohtfor} and the Detitioners mav be d irected to Dut-forth^the Detitioners' orlevance as D t-forth in the^{oresent Writ} Petition bv wav of a detailed reDresentation to the resoondents herein and u Don receiot of the sa id reD resentation. the resoonden ts would consider^{the same} in accordan to law. within a reasonable^period.

¶53

6 Lea rn ed ounsel aooearinq on behalf of the Detitioners does n t disoute the said submission^{made bv the learn ed}

¶54

6

¶55

SN.J \r P l]8] totl

¶56

standinq counsel appeaflnq on behalf of t re reso o n dent Nos.5 to 7, 11 to 15.

¶57

7, The Apex Court in the iudo ment report td in (2 020) 1 Scc ( L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Utta Pr esh an

¶58

others, at para 36 held a s under:

¶59

"36. There are some of the employees who i-i ve not been regulartzed in spite of having rendered the ser ,ices for 3040 or more years whereas they have been sr.. p erannuated, As they have worked in the work-charged es .ablishment, not against any particular project, their servir es ought to have been regularized under the Government instru ctio n s and even as per the decision of this Cour. in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the sa id decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the :ove r of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the ;erv ces be regularized of such employees. In the facts f the case, those employees who have worked for ten y: )rs or more should have been regularized. It would not t : proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizat ( n as others have oeen regularized, we direct that their ; erv ices be treated as a regular one. However, it is ma,i ) clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues, f d ilference in wages had they been continued in servi e regu larly before attaining the age of superannuation. I ey shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they h ve retired from he reoular esta bl ish men t and tl1l^services re nd ered bv them rioht from the av tf! v^entered the work-charoed establishment shall be o unted as o ua lifvlno servtce for ouroose of o nsion.'

¶60

The A ex Court in the case of Dharwarl Distri t PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Associatiorl Vs, State of J Ka rn ata ka reported in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 39, laid orin cip le that he State hould not keep a oerson in temoor arv or

¶61

7

¶62

SN,J wP 138.1 2023

¶63

adhoc servace for lono Deriod and have to treat such

¶64

Dersons as reoular one.

¶65

Para No.53 of the of the iud o men tof the Aoex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma devi. dated 1O.04.2006 reDorted in⁽² 06) 4 SCC 1is extracted

¶66

hereunder:-

¶67

"53. One aspe ct needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular aooointments^(not illeqal aooointments) as explai ed in S,V. Naravanaooa t967 1 L2 R. Nan unda a t972 1 SCC 409'l and B.N. Naqaraian 11979⁽⁴⁾ SCC 5O7l and referred to in Dara 15 above. of dulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctione vacant oosts miqht have been made and the emp lovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but^.without the intervention of orders of he courts or of tribunals, The ouestaon of reqularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in t h L ht.r f t h^lcrt flnclⁿ les settled^{hrr flri< f nrrrt} tn^tha cases abovereferred to nd in the lioht of this iudqment. In that context, the U^naon of India, the State Governments and their in stru me nta lities should take steos to reqularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreqularlv aooointed, h have worked fo en r tn sa n cti oned Dosts but not u der cover oI orde rs of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts t at reouire to be filled uo, in cases where temDorarv emolovees or dailv waqers are beinq now emDloyed. The orocess must be set in motion within six mo ths from this date.

¶68

The iudqment of the Apex Court dated 20. L2.2024.

¶69

reoorted i 2 24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jaoso Anita and

8

SN,.I wP lilJ4 2021

a

others v. Uni o of India and oth rs, ard the relevant Da ra raph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 2{ are extracte d bereulldcIi

¶74

"12. Despite being labelled os^,,pr; rrt-time workers," the appellants performer these essential tasks on a daily and co n tinuous basis over extensive periods, rangir g from over a decade to nearly two decadr:;. Their engagement was not sporadic or ter lporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, egular, and akin to the responsibilities t rpically associated with sanctioned posts. Mc reover, the respondents did not engage an,, other personnel for these tasks durir g the appellants tenure, underscorin,; the indispensable nature of their work.

¶75

The claim bv the resoonder 1^:s that hese we re not reoular oosts Iacks n!^{:rit. as} tthe natu re of the work oerfo rmed _^bv the ADDellan ts was oerennial and fundam 5^ntal to he fu ction in of h offi . The -:curring nature of these duties necessitates th eir classification as regular posts, irrespectiv,: of how their initial engagements were labelled. lt is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing r f these sa me tasks to private agencies af t _.r the appellants' termination demonstrates the i therent need for these services. This act of out:i( urcing, which effectively replaced one set of worl. t rs with another further underscores that the v ork in question was neither temporary nor occasi: ral.

¶76

The landmark judgment of the Unit: j State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corpora t on [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a t,( rtinent example from the private sector, illustrat rg the consequences of misclassifying emplol,r es to circumvent providing benefits. In thir; case, Microsoft classified certain workers as inder indent

\ \

9

SN.J u1P ri8l l02l

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 ol avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that ihe 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 the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassificatto ns and ensurinq that workers receive fa ir treatm e nt,

¶81

While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and ''irregular" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that emplovees in irreo u la ra pointments, who were enqaqed in an ed I osts ndh continuouslv for more than ten vears should be considered for reqularization as a onetime measure. However , the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately 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 selectiv eat) olication distorts the iudqment's spirit and ourpose, effectively

¶82

l0

¶83

SN, ] \ I' l38l toli

¶84

weaDonizino it aoainst em D ovees whrr have over rendered indispensable services d eca d es.

¶85

In light of these considerations, n our opinion, it is imperative for^govcr rment departments to lead by example in^pro,rid rg falr and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended^periods, es: :cially when their roles are integral to the organi.l rtion's functionrng, not only contravenes interrr, tional labour standards but also exposes the orgarr zation to legal challenges and undermines em^p loyee morale. By ensuring fair emplol ment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litiq ttion, promote job security, and upholrl the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach irligns with international standards and s( ts a positive precedent for the private sec I or to follow, thereby contributing to the <l rerall betterment of labour practices in the coi ntry.

¶86

In view of the above discussio r and findings, the appeals are allowed. The inrrr rgned orders passed by the High Court and the Tr bunal are set aside and the original application is.r owed to the following extent:

¶87

i. The termination orders dated 27 . l0.20lB are quashed ;

¶88

ii, The appellants shall be aken bae k on duty forthwith and their services reqularised fortl'with. However, the a^pellants shall rr rt be entitled to anY pec p niarv benefits/back waqes for the p eriod thev have not worked for but r rould be entitled to continuitv of ser vices for the said^period and the ;ame b un f rth _ oostretiral^jenefitg-

\ )

II

SN,J wP Dlt4 2021

The Judoment of the ADex Court dated 31.01.2025 reD orted in 2025 INSC L44 in'SHRIPAL A D ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD,,, in^paTticula e relevant oara Nos.15 to 19 a re extracted hereunder:

¶93

" 15. It is man fest that the ADDellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several ea rs sometimes s anntn mo h n Even if certain muster rolls were not Droduced in full, the Emolover's failure to furnish such recordsdesoite directtonstod so-allows an adverse inference under ell-established labour iurisorudence. Indian labour law stronqlv disfavors oerpetual dally-Waqe ot contractual enqaqements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and leqallv, workers who fulfil onqoinq municipal reouirements vear after vear cannot be dismissed summarily as disDensable, particularlv in the absence of a qenuine contractor aoreement. At this^juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:

¶94

"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

¶95

)

¶96

s.1 u'P Ii81 l0l_1

¶97

increase in preca rious employment a rra ng ements, often characterized by lack of benef t ;, job security, and fair treatment. Such practlc€ s have been criticized for exploiting workers a'r 1 u ndermin ing labour standards, Government inst tr t ons, entrusted rruith upholdrng the principles of fairnr is and^j u stice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such eiploitative employment practices When public sector entities engage in misusc of tem pora ry contracts, it not only mirrors the de.r mental trends observed in the gig economy bt t a Iso sets a concerning precedent that can erode l r blic trust in govern mental operation s,

¶98

It is a disconcerting reality . at temporary employees, particularly in governmr: tt ilstitutions, often face multifaceted forms of expr titation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or ;:asonal needs, they have increasingly become a mecl anism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-t,l'm obligations owed to employees. These practic: I manifest in several ways:

¶99

o M isuse of "Temporarv" Labels: EmDlovees enqaqed for work that is essenti rl, recurrtnq, and anteqral to the functioninq of , rn institution are often labelled as "terI porarY" or "contractua1," even when their roles mirror those of reqular emolo, Such m iscla ssifica tion deorives worl(^I o the d io n itv, secu ritv, and benefits _ :hat^{req u la r} emolov ees are entitle d to. desoi: : oerfor mrnq id n ical tasks.

¶100

. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary t mployees are frequently dismissed without cause or i otice, as seen in the present case. This practice r. r dermines the principles of natural justice and subje(:1 ; workers to a state oF constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . L::k of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportu r ties for skill development, promotions, or increme^-t al pay raises.

\ \

1l

SN,J wP li 84 2023

They remain stagnant in their roles, creating^a systemic disparity between them and their^regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally sig nificant.

¶105

. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles^performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This^practice not only^perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate efFort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

¶106

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are oFten denied fundamental benefits such as^{pension, provident} fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack oF social security subjects^them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circu msta nces.^"

¶107

The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to^justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-enqagement on daily wages with some measure of pariiy 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.

¶108

L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen standsⁱⁿ violation of the most basic labour law^principles. Once it^is established that their services were terminated^without

l.+

n

S..I u,r, lt84 201:t

adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of th : U. p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev we1 e enoao ed in essential ,o erennial d uties, th ese wol I ers cannotbe re leqated to e rpet ua I uncertain tv. '/ hile concerns of municioal budqet and conr rlian ce with recruitmen t rules erit co nstderation.;u ch concerns do not a bsolvethe Emplov er of statut ( rv obli q ations or neqate eq u itable e ntatlem e r ts. Indeed, bureaucratic li m itations ca n not trump he leqitima te riqhts of workmen who have served <i rntinuousl vtn de facto reqU lar roles for an extended p eriod. 18 The i mDuone d order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent th ev confine the A D oe lla nt Worl( nen to future daily-waqe enqa ement without c )ntin u itv or meanin qfu I back waqes, is herebv set side w th th t lowin !re ns:

¶113

i. The discontinuation of the Appei , nt Workmen,s services, effected without compliance ,rith Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrii) Disputes Act, 7947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their serv,ces are quashed. In consequence, the Appe ant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in s()i vice From the date of their termination, for all pui-gr ,ses, inclu d tng seniority and continuity in service.

¶114

II. The Respondent Employer shal reinstate the Appella nt Workmen in their respe( t ve posts (or posts akin to the duties they previoL: ly performed) within four weeks from the date of t ris judgment. Their entire eriod of absence (frc I r the date of term i n ation ntil act al rein atenl shall be cou nted for contin u itv of ser\I c and all

¶115

l5

¶116

SN,J wP t38.1 202i

¶117

conseouential benefits. such as senioritv^{a nd} eliq ibilitv for Dr motions, if anv.

¶118

ilL Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent^{Employer shall} clear the aforesaid dues within Lhree months from the date of their reinstatement.

¶119

IV. The ResDondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and transDarent rocess for req u la ri zi nq the Aooellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstat ment, dulv considerinq the fact that thev have oerformed erennial munici al d kin to erm rtosts In a ssess r n^?t re^attta rizatio n tha Emolover shall not ampose educational or ro ral criteria re r ivel ifs reouirements ere never aoDlied to the Aooellant Workmen or to similarl^V situ ated lar em lo ast. T n h sa n ctione n for such xt or are reouired the Resoondent Em D lover shall ite all nece in istrative to ensure these lonotime emplov es are not indefinitetv retained on dailv waoes^contra rv to statutor and eouitab e norms.

¶120

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."

¶121

The Apex Cou rt in a iudqment^{reported in(20L7)L} Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of^{Puniab and others} vs Jaqiit inoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-paras 1 of th aid ud men e s unde

¶122

l6

¶123

SN'-..1 \ P t-r ll.1 20:l

¶124

rl

¶125

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, / h ile adjudicating upon the above controversy had concludec. that temporary employees vtere not entitled to the minimum ( I the regular payscale, nte;ely for the reason, that the acttvtil s carried on by dally-vtaqers and regular employees were si-t1t t .. T\e fu ll bench however, na,7e two exceptions. Temporary ert )ioyees, who iell in eithet of the two exceptions, were held e1', led to wages at the minimunt of the pay-scale drawn by regul, t emDloyees. The exceptians recorded by the full bench of the^L ;g h Cou rt in the impugnt:d ludgment are extracted hereunder:

¶126

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or cont, ctuai appointee agatnst the regular sanctioned posts, t appointed after undergoing a selection process based t,1 on fairness anc| equaltty of opportunity to all other el r ible candidates, shatt be entitled to minimum of the regJ t. pay scate front the date of engagement.

¶127

2 B if dail ers ad ,r contractua I a DDoin tees are not aDDointed a a atn re ular sanctioned oosts and their servic E are availe continuouslv. with notiona I breaks bv the State Government or its instrumenta lities . or a sufficient lono^period i.e. for 70 vears, such dg ilv wao ers, ad hoc or contractual aooointees shalr be entitled to minimum of the reqular oa v sca l( without anv allowances on the assum tion ! \a ork of peren n ia I nature is available and hav no worked for such lonq oeriod of time, an eqtr, table riqht is created in such ca teoorv of oe rsons. 'heir cl, I for reqularization if anv. mav have to 5e considered seoaratelv in terms of leoally oermis:;_ ble schem e,

¶128

( 3 ) In the event, a claim is made for nt . mun pay scale after more than three years anC t vo months of completion of 10 years of continuous v orkrnq, a daily vrager, ad hoc or contractual employee st ,lt be enti ed to arrears for a period of three years and t'^c moaths.,,

¶129

The iudqment of the Aoex Cou rt reDort e d in 201O(9) scc 247 between: State of Karnataka :r rd others v M.L.Kesari a nd others, in Darticular, Da ras 4 o 9 reads as

under

\

)1

SN,J wP r384 2023

The decision in State of Karna taka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006^(reDorted in 2006⁽⁴⁾ SCC 7). In that case, a C n n 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 reengagement nor make their servtce^permanent, and the High Court in exercise of^jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner/ in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instru mentalities, 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 Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below^;

¶135

"53. One asDect needs to be clarified, There mav be cases where irreoular a DDotn tments^(not illeaal e as ex lained in S.V. Nara 7967 7 sc N. 72 C,^f dnol ^nd B.N. Na ara an 7979 4 scc and referred to in Dara 7 5 above. of dulv oualified ersons in dul nct d ,-2n? r*t iahi h av ^^<;< and the em lo ees have co ti. work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. estion of ularization of the such emalovees mav ha ve to be considered on Court I in in the the cases li ht abovereferredof the rtncl Ies to asend in the lioht, ment. In th t contex the Un India, the State G vernments and their instru mentalities should t^'ake steas to redularize as measu re the service of su L aDDointed. who have wo ed for ten vears or more ctioned osts but r e courts or of tribu furth r recruitmen undertaken to fill those cant sanctioned oosts f ha uire to be lled u case wh temDorarv emolovees or dailv waoers are beino

l8

S..I \ P I l8l 2,)ll

.)

now emDloved. The Drocess must b< set in motion within six months from this date, .,.,

¶140

''5. It is evident from the above that the - is an exceptton to the general principles against regularizatt ; t' etunciated tn Umadevi, if the follovring conditions are fulfillec

¶141

(i) The employee concerned sltould have wort<,,r for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the bene|i or protection of the interint order of any court or tnbunal. It ther words, the State Go,/ernment or its instrumentality shou,: hav,e employed the employee and continued him in servrct t,oluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶142

(it) The appointment of such employee shoL ( not be illegal, even if irreqular. Where the appointments ,,, : nct made or continued against sanctioned posts or v'',,) ) e the persoqs appointed da not possess the prescribed ntinir"," n q ualifica tions, the appaintments t//ill be considered to be illeg a . But where the person employed possessed the prescribed ,t alifications and was working aqainst sanctioned posts. but h) I been selected wrthout undergoing the process of open conli), titive selection, such appointments are considered to be irrequl,t

¶143

( iii) Umade vi casts a dutv ,rDon r :l e concerned Government or instrumen litv, to ta ke sfeps to reqularize the services of those irreou,t rlv aoooin ted emplovees who had served for more ll a n n rs without the benefit or oro tection of anv in I trim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time mea.; tre. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure nt ,st be set in

¶144

motion within six m onths from the date tf its ectston (rendered o 70.4.2006).

¶145

The term^' one-time measure' has to be . i derstood in its proper perspective. This would normally mear that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or eacl instrumentaltty should undertake a one-time exercise and pres a re a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who lt. \ e been working for more than ten years without the intervent,. -t of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process v? 'ification as to whether they are working against vacant posts, nd possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, -egularize their services.

¶146

At the end of six months from the dat,: of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hocic e ;ual employees were still pending before Courts. Conse., ent'y, several

\

l9

SN,J wP 13 84 2023

departments and instrumentalities did not commence^{the one-} time regularization^process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instru menta lities undertook the one-ttme 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 Umadevr, will^{not lose} their^right to^be considered for regularization, merely because the^one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month^period mentioned^{in para 53 of Umadevi} has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all^daily' wa g e/ad hoc/those employees who had^put in 10^years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without^availingthe protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exerciseⁱⁿ terms^{of para 53} of l.Jmadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of^para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise^{will be concluded} only when all the employees who are entitled^{to be considered} in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

¶151

The o iect behind the s ,d direction in^{Dara53 of} Umadevi is two- fold. First rc fo ensure^.that t^{hose who} have Dut in more than ten vears of contin^uousservtce without the Drotection of an v interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in^Uma devi^was rendered, are considered for reoularizati on in view of their lonose rvice, Seco n ,s to ensure hat e de D a rtmen^t< /instru mentalities d^onotD erD etuate the Dractice of emDlovinq D ersons on dailv-waoe^{/ ad-} hoc/casual for lono oeriods and then^oeriodicallv reqularize them on the^qround that t ve served for more tha ten vears, therebv defeatino the constituti^ona I r statuto s, n relatin cr , ent a aDDointment, The true effect of the^{directionis that all} Dersons o have worked for more than ten rs as on 70.4.2006^(th date of decision in Umadevi) without the rotection of erim order of c rt or tribun vacant Dosts, Dossessinq the requisite lification, are entitled to be considered for re^{oularization.Th} fact that he em lo rha underta uch la za on wtthi x months e Umadevi or that such exercise was^un taken onlv in reoard to a limited few, will not sen title such emolovees, the rioht to be considered fot^{requla rization}

¶152

20

¶153

SN,.I wP riE4 20ll

¶154

in terms of the above directions in Um^a d^ev i as a^one-time measure.

¶155

These appeals have been^pending for more^{han four years} after the decisiori in Umadevi. The Appellant^{(7-ila Panchayat,} Gadag) has not considered the cases oi espandents^of regulanzation withtn six months of the decisior rn Umadevi or the rea fte r.

¶156

The Divlsion Bench of the High Court has ) rected that the cases of respondents should be considered in , ccordance with law. The only further direction that needs be l ten, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gace 1^shouldnow undertake an exercise within stx months, a^q,: ,eral one time regularization exerose. to find out whether tht't =^{are any darly} wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila i anchayat and rf so whether such employees (including the re; rcndents) fu lfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umattr vi. If they fu lfill them, their services have to be regularized. Ir s tch an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or o;r tting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendenc., of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered i,t continuation of the said one time exercise within three months t is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the^, 2qu irements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not r'( regularised. If the employees who have completed ten year; service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribe 1 for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may ot: considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appc, lis disposed of accordlngly.

¶157

L4. In the iudqment of the ADex Court ir Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Puniab reported in⁽ 2 013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case c F absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the itate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose d sposal their services were made available. It held that t re mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did nr): render the

l \

2,1

SN,J wP D8l 2023

appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of^a cadre or sanctioning of^posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but^chose to^make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to acceDt the defence that there were no sa nctioned^oosts and so there was iustification for the State to utilise se rvtces of lar n e number of ne o Dle like the a^nDe T e nts for decades. It he ld that "sanctioned^p osts^do. not fall^from heaven" and that the Stat has to create them bva cdnscious choice on the basis of some ratio^{al assessment} of need. Referrinq to Umade vi. it held that^the ooella nts before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their initial aDoointment was not an'irreqular' appointment as it^had been made in acco rdance wath the statu orv orocedure p rescribed under the Police Act. 1861, and the State r^r tt n .rt be heard to caw t hat the a n t ent ladfaha a bso rbed into the services^{of the State on permanent} basis as, accordinq to it, their a^DD ol ntments^{wre ourelv}

¶162

.)

¶163

SN.] \/P li s4 2021

¶164

temporarv and not a ainst anv sanctioned E^{osts created} bvt he State. It was held that the iudqmerrt in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation bv t re State a nd its instrumentalities and neither the Gc ,] ernment of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can cor ue cha Dractice inconsistent with their obliqation 1:r function in accordance with the Con stitution.

¶165

The iud qment of the Aoex Court re p(L te in 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu rn others v Nellore Municipal Corooration Reo. bv its (,r mmissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Prades h and others . in oarticular

¶166

Daras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶167

(7) We find it cult to acceDt the re d SO D tl-1'la do ted b he Hiqh Court. The riqht of the apeeuants to se? : r, la riza t io n flows fr,o m the G.o. No.212 dated 22.4.199t Th e-n-ppelldrt have been in 5qrvice of the first resDondent no!l nly prior to the issuance of the5 aid G.O. but even su bsequen t to the tssue of .o. till lpiOy. The respondent Municipality te ng a statutory body is oblrged by the G.O. 212(supra). Insp,t: of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for,lmost 20 years without regularising the servtce of the appetlart: and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶168

In the circumstances, refusing the bend t of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appel .1ts approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not , rstified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying he order under appeal by directing that the appellants' servict,: be regutarised with effect from the date of their completin! their five year continuous service as was laid down by this ( aurt in District Collector/Chair person & Others vs. M.L. Singh I Ors, 2009 (B) SCC 4BO.

) )

2i

SN,J wP ll81 2023

In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reDorted^(2015)8 SCC 265. the Su Dreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this^{case was to permit} regularization of such appointment, which are^irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments,^{which are} irregular but not illegal, and to ensu re securitv of emolovm nt of those Dersons who had served^{the State} Government and their in stru m entalities for^{more than ten} vea rs". In that^{case, em} olovee^{was worki nq for 2} vea rs. This deci s on aooroves e^a rlier view^expressedin

¶173

M.L.Kesari ex racted above.

¶174

In State of larkhand v^{Kamal Prasadreorted in}

¶175

20L4 7 c 223 st it vtew w t ken b h

¶176

Suprem e Court and it was^h eldasf !lows

¶177

"47,... In view of the catesorica I findinq of fact on^the relevant ntentious issue that the resoondent^emolovees havel nti nued in their service for^{more than7 O vears} continuouslv therefo the leoal o nciole laid downbv this Court in Umadevi case^{(tate of KarnatakavUmadevi} 6 4 SCC o 6 SCC 3 at ara arel a oolies^{to theD} resen^tce-ses The^DivisionB en of^the Hiah Court has riohtlv eld that the soondent emolovees are entitled for t^e relief. the^{samecannot be} int red with bv this Court."

¶178

The Judgment of this Court dated^06.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2019 which^pertains to

¶179

{

¶180

SN,J wP Lt I.i4 2023

¶181

regula rization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshr ri Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda Di;trict, which had been upheld by the Division Benctr of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.1O.2( 23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex lourt dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ol 2024.

¶182

The i ud o ment of the Aoex Court in H iK ishna Mandir Tru st V. State of Ma h a rashtra and O'l l r re o rted tn AIR 2020 S u D reme Court 3969 and in o; r ular ara Nos.1OO and 101 held as follows:

¶183

"100. The High Courts exercising their lurJ iction u nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nci on ly have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or rl the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to rercise such DOWer. w here the Governm ent or a ot rli aut rl has failed to exercise or has wronc lv exercised discretion conferred upon it bv a statutg or a rule, or a^policv decision of the Government or.j as exe rcised such d isc retion mala fide. or () t irrelevant cons ad era tion.

¶184

In all such cases, the High Court mus. rssue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel lerformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of he discretion conterred upon the Government or a publir: e .lthority.,,

¶185

The Division Bench of this Cou rt in Jud men dated 10. O6.2013 oassed in W.A.No s.782 of 01O and 854 of 2OL2 while uoholdin q the Judomen t dat(: I O8.O .2010

\ t

25

SN.J wP 13 81 202i

passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2008

¶190

observed as under:-

¶191

"Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20,12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and Iatest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25T 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 tlme 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 consrdered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interlerelce in tnese appeals."

¶192

2L. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment

¶193

dated L9.O9.2OL7 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2Ol7 reported in 2018(2)ALD^paqe 282 at^para 16 and^para 18

¶194

observed as under:-

¶195

'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 Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 7994 and G.O. lvls. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, 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 one-time public posts, consciously ordered for absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. lYs. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in

¶196

26

¶197

S.J u P r.ls.+ l02l

¶198

Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's r.', se (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of rre States where State enactments banning reguiarization/;rlsorption exist. Therefore Act 2 of 19 94 and c.O. Ms. _ !o.212, dated 22.4.L994. do not whittle down the g idth and the iudqment in Maniula Bashini's case (st J a does n lower the traiectorv of the directions ssued by the Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqmen I in Uma Devi's su ra I therefore n r ssible for the resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 o t 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.21 2, dated 22.4.19 94 to denv rc ul rization to the oetitioners, who have, admittedlv satisfi ed the Deyi's criteria case laid^(supra down ).in Pa ra No.53 of the iu e ment in Uma

¶199

For the aforementioned reasons, order, : )ied Zl .6.2oll , in OA No. 1442 of 2074 , on the file of the Trrlrr na I is set aslde and the writ petition is allowed with the 1 r tion to th resDondents to consider reo u la risation of the servi ces of the^petitioner s aqainst the existinq vacir rcies of Work InsDectors and aoooint them ubiect to t reir satisf tnq the criteri la id down in Para No.53 of t1 ud ment in Uma Devi's case^(suDra). This D rocess mu! be comDleted withi n two months from the d te of rece I tofa coov of this order."

¶200

The Division Bench of this Court in ts Judqment dated 2 1.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.No s.1 of 2O2( in 1 t2 19 and w. P.No.23O5 7 ot 2Ot9 reDorte d in 2O2( (4)ALD Daqe 379 at aras 45, 48 and Dara 50 observed as rnder:-

¶201

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have t :en working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almcs (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimunt :ime-scale lrom the year 2000. They have been continuously^./orking without any Court orders in their Favour from 1990 till d3 e.

¶202

rt is not known whv the lst resDol t has not il w e in Uma Devi' ^ (suora ), as exDlained in M.L. Kesa ri's case (suora) an i under aken a one-t ime exercrse of DreDarino the list l f dailv wage emolovees who had worked for mo re tha n en (1O) years witho ut the intervention of the Courts and I -ibunals as on 10.4.2 O6 and subie them to a or CeSS vr if ication as to

\

27

SN.J wP t381 :0ti

whether thev are workino aqainst vacant posts and e ualifica to sf r he and if re^q ularize their services.

¶207

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20,8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization oF services on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 oF the Constitution of India; the resoondents are directed to re^qularize on one-time basis oetitioners' services from the date each of the oetitioners com olete 1 Ovears of service on dailv waqes from the initial dates of their aoooin ment. But, thev shall not be FntitlF.l f.r anv rri.rrratarv raliaf Tha <rid avarrica chall ha done within two⁽²⁾ weeks from the date of receiot of coDv of the order. "

¶208

This Court opines that in the Dresent case, the relpondents failed to discharqe their duty in examininq the request of the petitioners for reqularization of on servr ces who are workin as. H dP Mechanics and further to consider their req_uest to treat the temDorary service of the Detitioners in the last^qrade sts re on r r s orade oav with oeriodical in re mentre vised from tirne to time from the date of aoDointment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law.

¶209

24, This Court oDines that^petitioners are entitled for consideration of^p etitioners case for orant of the relief as ra ed for in th resent Writ Petition an vi

¶210

SN..I wP 116 I 1023

¶211

observ tion s of the Aoex Cou rt in variou; iud ments (referred to and extracted above) and thr: view of th e Division Bench of thi s Cou rt in the Judqmerl; referred to and extracted a bove.

¶212

Takinq into con s idera tio n: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances (,1 the case. b) The submissions made by the lea r red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and lear red standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responderr Nos.4 & 5

¶213

c) The observations of the Apex Court ir the various judgments (referred to and extracted aborr ) and again enlisted below:

¶214

i)(2020) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) ScC page 396 (iii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l Scc 148 (vi) 2O1o(9) s0c 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Ontine SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) I sCC 26s (x) (2014) 7 Scc223 (xi) SLP No.32841 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379

¶215

SN,J u'P 1381 202i

¶216

d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2008 (referred to and extracted above),

¶217

e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272l7 ol 2017 (referred to and extracted above),

¶218

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4,2O2O passed in t.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ot9 (referred to and extracted above).

¶219

g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the^present order.

¶220

Tlra Wri^t Petition is allow^otl tha na t + ners ar directed to Dut-fortht he claim of the etitio n e rs for reoularization of Detitioners services, and also the claim of the oetitioners to treat the temDorarv ervtces of the Detitaoners in the^I ast^q rade oosts as^{reqularone for all} pu rposes bv qrantinq last orade Dav with oeriod ica I increments revised from time to time from the date of

30

SN,J \vP ti8.+ 2023

o

appointment of the^petitioners and all I^onseouential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant c ocuments in support of^petitioners case as^put-forth in th(^present writ petition, within a p of one^(O1) week f r :m the date of receipt of coov of the order and the res rr rndents shall on receipt of the same examine and considr: the same in c r n conformi with flncr r es of natu ral iustiee by^providinq an opportunity of Dersor al hearinq to the^petitioners. in terms of orders^passed b\l the Supreme Court in Um a Devi's case reported in 20O6(4 SCC Paqe 1, the iudqment oassed in W.P.No.24377 o 2OO7 dated 08.09.201O reoorted in 2O11 (1) ALD, Paqe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.N 7 2 2O1O dated 1O. )6.2013 and also as oer Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated 19.09.2017 oassed in W. P.N o.272t7 of 2OCr' reDorted in 2018(2)ALD^paqe 2A2 and also the Dir ision Bench Judoment of this Court dated 2L.O4.2Oil_ ) oassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.2:057 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD oaqe 379 which rad attained finalitv, within a period of four (O4) weeks I 'om the date of recet Dt of a coov of th s order. dulv takinq into co nsi d rat on the o bservati ons and the law aid down bv

<br>

3l

SN.J wP I:t 84 202i

the Aoex Cou rt in the various iudom ents^(r eferred to and extracted above). andin n rt CU a r na f a No-53 of the iudqment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v Uma Devi and dulv co municate the decision to th e Detitioners. However, there shall be no

¶229

order as to costs.

¶230

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed

¶231

SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

I

One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTTCE S EPALLI NANDA (For Herlordship's Kind Perusal

¶236

To 1. 1'l L.R. Copies.

¶237

The Under S^ec1elary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶238

The .. Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶239

The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan. Hvderabad.

¶240

The Principal .Secretary,. .Panchayat Raj and' Rural Development Dept, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶241

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶242

7 The Engineeiln-Chief, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶243

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Kamareddy District.

¶244

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja parishad, Medak Disirict.

¶245

10.The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja parishad, Siddipet District.

¶246

1 1 . The District Panchayat Rai Officer, Kamareddv District.'

¶247

'12.The District Panchayat Raj Oficer, Medak Disirict.

¶248

'l3.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddipet District.

¶249

'14. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, pitlam Mandal, Kamareddy District.

¶250

1 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Shankarampet (A) Mandal, Medak District.

¶251

'16.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. 1 7. The Mandal Parishad Deveiopment Officer, Chihnakodur Mandal, Siddipet Diskict.

¶252

I

¶253

18.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet District. 19.Two CCs to CC rODAY FOR GENERAL ADMTNTSTRATION, High Court for the State of Telanoana. at Hvderabad IOUTI

¶254