M.Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing^our services in terms of orders passed by the Honorable Supreme^{Courtin Uma Devi}

¶25

s case (2006 (4) SCC 1) from the date of date of completion of 10 years of service as followecJ by this Honorable Court in WP No.2437712007 dt. 8.9.2010 (2011 (1) ALD 234) as confirmed in WA No.78212010 dt. 10.6.2013 and also in WP No. 2721712017 dt. 19.9.2017 (2018 (2) ALD 282) and in WP No.2305712019 dt. 21.4.2020 ( 2020 (4) ALD 379) is illegal, arbitrary ernd violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize our services from the date of completion of 10 years as held by the Honorable Supreme Court in Uma Devi s case as followed by this Honorable Court in WP No.2721712O17, dt. 19.9.2017 and in several cases as referred supra with all attendant benefits.

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to consider our claim for regularization from the date of completion of 10 years in terms of law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Uma Devi s case , pending final disposal of the writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl B.PRAVEEN rep.,SRl P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNTNG

¶29

Counsel for Respondent No.3&4 : SRI G.NARAYANA, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

5

¶31

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.147O2 OF 2O23

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard Sri B. Praveen, learned counsel representing Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government pleader for MA&UD appearing on behalf of the respondent No.l, learned Government Pleader for Finance and planning appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Sri G. Narayana, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶35

The oetitioners aporoached the Court seekinq orayer as under:

¶36

"....to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing petitioners services in terms of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (2006 (4) SCC 1) from the date of date of completion of 10 years of service as followed by this Hon'ble Court in Wp No.24377/2007 dt. 8.9.2010 (2011 (1) ALD 234) as confirmed in WA No.7B2/ZOLO dt. 10.6.2013 and also in WP No. 272L7/2017 dt. 19.9.2OL7 (20t8 (2) ALD 282) and in WP No.23057/2019 dt. 21.4.2020 (2020 (4) ALD 379) is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize our services from the date of completion of 10 years as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.272L7/2077, dt. 19.9.2017 and in several cases as referred supra with all attendant benefits and pass..."

¶37

<br>

¶38

6

¶39

3 case eti bri ents the b tati e suDDort of the Dresent rit Petition is as under:-

¶40

i) The petitioner Nos.2 and 8 were appointed on 9.8.1990, the petitioner No.3 was appointed on 24.4.1990, the petitioner No.4 was appointed on 27.8.L990 and the petitioner No.5 is appointed on 1.3.1990, the pctitioner No.6 is appointed on 23.10.1991 and the petitioner No.7 was appointed on 29,1.1990 respectively as Sanitary Jawan, Attender and Non pH Workers on NMR basis, in the then Kapra Municipality, at present, the petitioners are working in Kapra Circle i.e., 4th respondent circle of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, as such from the date of petitioners initial appointment petitioners had been continuously working without any blemish whatsoever from the higher authorities. It is further the case of the petitioner that after completion of 5 years of service, the petitioners were allowed to draw periodical increments from the date of granting time scale.

¶41

ii) It is he soecific se of the etitioners t at the Detitioners hav Dut anm re than 32 vears of ervt on dailv waoeun erthec ntrol of he res Dondents. thouqh

f

7

dated 22.4.1994.

iii) It is further the specific^{case of the petitionersthat the} petitioners are getting time scale from 1996 onwards^{along with} periodical increments from the date of^granting the time^scale. As such, the^petitioners are^{gettingall the benefitson par with} the regular employees, however^{the servicesof the petitioners} have not been regularized till as on^{date, despiterepeated} requests made by the^{petitionersto the respondents.Aggrieved} by the same, the^{petitioners filed the presentwrit petition.}

¶46

¶47

A. The counter affidavit has been^{filed on behalf of} th

¶48

*3. It is submitted that all the petitioners are working since t996, 1997 as NMRS and^{they are being paid} minimum time scale and also^{getting the periodical} increments from the date of^{grant of time scale But,} thev m comolete 5 of service 25-11-

¶49

8

¶50

It is submitted that the petitioners have not completed ten years of services in 4th Respondent Corporation to consider their case for regularization in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in Umadevi's case. It is further submitted that in Umadevi's case the apex court mentioned some other conditions also such as they have to appointed in sanctioned post, appointment must be irregular one, availability of vacancies, qualification, and they must be continuously working for more than ten years without the benefit of any court orders, moreover it was one time measure. In view of the same the judgment rendered by apex court in Umadevi's case is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Hence petitioners are not entitled to regularization of the services.

¶51

It is submitted that when the petitioners have not put in 5 years of service as such they are not eligible for regularization of their services in the existing the vacancies. This aspect is also considered by the Supreme Court in Manjula Bhashini,s case where the Supreme Court also considered and observed that a person who complete 5 years of service by 25.11.1993 alone for reg ularization. "

¶52

Lear ed coun I aooea tno on behalf of the lo servi as on the date of rdict rendered in " te of

¶53

9

¶54

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the subject assue in the present case is squarely covered by the order of this Court^dated 0S.O9.2O10 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot^{2OO7 reported in} 2OLt (1) ALD, Page 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 ol 2010 dated 10.06.2013 and also order dated^19.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272l7 of 2OL7 reported in 2018 (2) ALD Page 282 and also the order dated 2L.O4.2O2O^{passed in} W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ol9 reported in 2O2O^{(4) ALD Page} 379, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of^the respondents does not dispute the said submission^made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf^ofthe petitioners.

¶55

Learned Standing Counsel aopearing on behalf^{of the} respondents contended that since the^{petitioners did not} complete 5 yiars of service as on 25.11.1993^{and further} the petitioners do not have requisite^{qualifications in} terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. dated 22.O4.1994 and^therefore, the oetitioners are not entitled for any relief.

¶56

Learned Standing Counsel appearino on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the^grievance of the

¶57

l0

¶58

petitioners as put-forth in the present Writ Petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and therefore, the petitioners cannot complain inaction on orievance of the petitioners and hence, the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present Writ petition cannot be granted and no Mandamus can be issued aqainst the respondents hereunder as souqht for and the petitioners mav be directed to put-forth the oetitioners' grievance as put-forth in the present Writ Petition bv way of a detailed representation to the respondents herein and upon receipt of the said representation, the respondents would consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable oeriod.

¶59

Learned counsel apoearing on behalf of the oetitioners does not dispute the said submission made by the Iearned Standing Counsel appearinq on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶60

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:.

f -Ef

il

I

The Apex Court in the^judgment reported in^(2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in "Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others", at oara 35 held as under:

¶65

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have workeQ in the work-charged establishment, not against any^{particularproject,} their services ought to have been regularized under^the Government instructions and even as^per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi^(3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten^years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However,^it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continuedⁱⁿ service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as-^{qualifyinq service} for ouroose of Dension."

¶66

The Aoex Court in the case of "Dharwa^{d DistrictPWD} Literate Daily Wage Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka" reported in 199O(2) SCC Page 396^laid principle that the State should not keep a person in temporary or adhoc service for long^period and have to treat such persons as reqular one.

¶67

I

¶68

t2

¶69

Para No.53 of the of the iudgment of the^Apex Court in the "State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi", dated 10.04.2006 reported in^(2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted

¶70

hereunder:-

¶71

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irregular appointments^(not illegal appointments) as exptained in S.V. Narayanappa [1967^{(1] SCR 128I,} El N Nanirrn -hha l1Oa, /l I Ctfl^ (!'l rnd n N Nagarajan l'1979 (4) SCC 5O7I and referred to in^para15 above, of duly qualified^persons in duly sanctioned^vacant posts might have been made and the ernplovees have continued to work for ten^years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees mav have to be considered on merits^{in the} light of the orinciples settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this iudgment' In that context. the Union of India, the State Governments^and their instrumentalities should take steos to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten^years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned^posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary emoloyees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date...,.

¶72

The^judgment of the Aoex Court dated 2O.12.2O24' reported in 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in "Jaqgo Anita and others v. Union of India and others", and the relevant oaragraph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder:

/ /

l3

J

"12. Despite being^{labelled as"part-time} workersr" the^{appellants performed t-hese} essentiai tasks on^{a daily and continuousbasis} over extensive^{periods, ranging from overa} decade to^{nearly two decades. Their engagement} was not sporadic^{or temporary in nature, instead'} it was recurrent,^{regular,and akin tothe} rlsponsibilities^{typicaltyassociated with} sanctioned^{posts.Moreover,the respondents did} not engage any^{otherpersonnel for these tasks} during^-the apfellants^{tenure, underscoring the} indisflensable^{nature of their work'}

¶77

The claim by the^{respondentsthat these} were not regular^{posts lacks merit, as the nature} was F the wor[ oerformed^b,the "Orellants to the functioning^of @amental iGlirices. rne recurring^{nature of these duties} ***it"t"r their classification^{as regular posts,} irrespective of how^{their initial engagementswere} labelled. It is^{also noteworthythat subsequent} outsourcing of^{these same tasks to private agencies} irt". the appellants'^{termination demonstratesthe} inherent need^{fortheseservices' This act of} outsourcing,^{which effectively replaced one. set of} workers wilh^{another furtherunderscoresthat the work} in question^{was neither temporary nor occasional'}

¶78

24.ThelandmarkjudgmentoftheUnitedStatein the case of^{Vizcaino rMicrosoftCorporation 197 F '3d} LLBT (9th Cir.^{1996)l servesas a pertinentexample} from the^{private sector, illustratingthe consequences} of misclassifying^{employeesto circumvent providing} benefits. In'^{th-is case, Microsoft classifiedcertain} workers as^{independentcontractors, thereby denying} them employee^{benefits. The U'S' Court of Appealsfor} theNinthCircuitdeterminedthattheseworkersWere, in fact, common-law^{employeesand were entitled to} the same benefits^{as regular employees' The Court} noted that large^{Corporationshave increasingly} adopted the^{practice of hiringtemporary employees or} independent contractors^{as ameans ofavoiding} payment of employee benefits,^{thereby increas.ing their} profits. This^judgment underscores^{the principle that} the nature of the"work^{performed, ratherthan the label} assigned to the worker,^{should determine employment} status and the corresponding^{rights and} -be-nefits'^It highlights the iudiciary's^{role in rectifying such}

¶79

l4

¶80

misclassifications and^{ensuring thatworkers} receive fair treatment.

¶81

While the^{judgmentin UmaDevi (supra)sought} to curtail the^{practice of backdoor entries and ensure} appointments adhered^{to constitutional principles,it is} regrettable that^{its principlesare often misinterpreted} or misapplied to deny^{legitimate claims of longserving} employees. This^{judgmentaimed todistinguish} between^"illegal" and^{"irregular" appointments'} It .at.gota."ll, h"ld th"t "mrlorees^{in itteot'la'} appointments, who^{were engaged in- duly} Ftioned^{posts and had servedcontinuouslyfQr} more than ten^{years should be considered for} regularization as a one-time^{measure'However,} $re taudable intent^{of the judgment is being subverted} when institutions^{rely on its dicta to indiscriminately} reject the claims of^{employees,even in cases where} thLir 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 regulari:ration} exists for temporary^{employees,overlooking the} judgment's explicit acknowledgment^{of cases where} regularization is appropriate.^{Thisselective} ap-plication distorts^the iudgment's -spirit^and gurpose. effectively weaponizing^itagainst Employees who^{have renderedindispensable} services over decades'

¶82

In light of these^{considerations, in our opinion,it} is imperative for^{government departmentsto lead by} example in^{providing fair and stableemployment'} Engaging workers^{on a temporarybasis for extended} p"riods,-"specially when their^{roles are integral to the} organization's functioning,^{notonly contravenes} intLrnational labour^{standardsbut 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, promote job} security, and uphold^{the principles of justice and} fairness that they^{are meant to embody' This} approach aligns^{with international standardsand} sets a^{positiveprecedentfor the private sector to} foltow, thereby contributing^{to theoverall} betterment of labour^{practices in the country.}

f /

l5

.J

2a. 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^asideand the original application is allowed to the^following extent:

¶87

i. The termination orders dated 27 .LO.2018 are^quashed;

¶88

ia. The aopellants shall bg taken aopellants shall not be entitled to^anv would be entitled to continuity of services for the said^period and the^same rnrorrlrl corrnferl for t r nnctretiral benefits."

t4

ll

rn

"15.

cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,

¶94

.\

¶95

l6

¶96

agreement. At this^{juncture, it would be appropriateto 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:

¶97

*22. The pervasive misuse of temporary' employment contracts, as exemplified^{in this case, reflects a broader} systemic issue that adversely^{affectsworkt:rs' rightsand} job security. In the private sector, the rise of the^gig economy has led to an^{increasein precariousemployment} arrangements, often characterized^{by lack of benefits, job} security, and fair treatment.^{Such practiceshave been} criticized for exploiting^{workersand undermining labour} standards. Government institutions,^{entrusted with} upholding the^principles of^{fairness and justice, bear an} even greater responsibility to^{avoid suchexploitative} employment^{practices. When publicsector entitiesengage} 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.

¶98

Zi. it is a disconcerting reality that^{temporary employees,} particularly in government institutions, often^face multifaceted forms of exploitation.^{While the foundational} purpose of temporary contracts may have been^to address short-term or seasonal needs,^{they have} increasingly become a mechanism to^{2024 SCC OnlineSC} 3826 evade long-term obligations^{owed to employees.} These practices manifest in several^ways:

¶99

r. Misuse of "Temporary" LAbPls: Emplovees engaged for work that is essential'^{recurrino' and} often labelled as "temporary" or^{"contractual."even} when their roles mirror those of^{regularemplovees.} identical tasks.

¶100

o Arbitrary Termination: Temporary ernployees^are frequently dismissed without cause^{or notice, as seenin} the present case. This^{practice undermines the principles} of natural^justice and^{subjects workers to a state of} constant insecurity, regardless^{of the qualityor duration}

I /

t7

I

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.

¶105

o 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 circumstances. "

¶107

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

¶108

commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

¶109

In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev h na-aanirl rlrrtiac thaca

\

1 i \ i

l8

workers cann t be releoated to oeroetu luncertaintv. While concerns of municipal budoet and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emoloyer of statutory obligations or negate eouatable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trumo the leoitimate riohts of workmen wh have served continuousl in de facto regular roles for an extended^period.

¶114

The imouoned order of the Hioh Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future dailv-wage enoaoement without contanuitv or meaninoful back waoes, is hereby set aside with the following directions:

¶115

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all^purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶116

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective^posts (or^posts akln to the duties they prevlously performed) within four weeks from the date of this^judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence^(from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be ounted for continuitv of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for oromotions, if any.

¶117

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.

¶118

IV. The Resoondent Emolover is directed to initiate a faar and transparent^process for reoularizing the ADDellant Workmen withi!! sb(months from the date

¶119

l9

¶120

-r,l

¶121

of reinstatement, dulv considering the fact that^they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Emoloyer shall not impose educational or such procedural criteria retroactively if requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular emolovees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative^processes to ensure these^longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on dailv wages contrary to statutorv and equitable norms.

¶122

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."

¶123

The Apex Court in a iudgment reported^{in (2O17) 1} Supreme Court Cases 148, in^{"State of Puniab and others} vs Jaojit Singh and others" at Paras 54 and^{its sub-paras}

¶124

(1)(2)(3). of the said iudgment observed as under:

¶125

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had co.ncluded,^{that temporary} employees were not entitled to the^{minimumof the regular pay-} scale, merely for the reason, that the^{activities carried on by} daily-wagers and regular employees^{were similar. The full bench} however, made two exceptions. Temporary^{employees, who fell} in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to^{wages at} the minimum of the^pay-scale drawn by^{regular employees.The} exceptions recorded by the full bench of the^{HighCourt in the} impugned^judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶126

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned^posts, if appointed^after undergoing a selection^process based upon^fairnessand equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular^pay scale from the date of engagement.

¶127

20

¶128

(2) But if daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual aooointees are not eDDointed aoainst reoular sanctioned Dosts and t, eir services are availed continuousl with notional breaks. v the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long oeriod i.e. for 7O vears. such daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to ntinimum of the reaular oav scale without anv allowances on the a umDtion that work of oerennial nature is available and having worked for such lono riod of time, an eaui ble rioht is created in such cateoorv f oersons. Their claim for regularization. if anv. mav have to be considered separately in terms of legally oermissible scheme.

¶129

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

¶130

The iudoment of the Aoex Court reoort d in 2O1O(9)

¶131

c.ff ua.a betw n: riGlrla tsl K=rna +- k n A atlrarc rr

¶132

M.L.Kesar i and others". in oa icular, oaras 4 to reads as

¶133

under:

¶134

a. The_decision in State of adevi was rendered n rted in 2 In that Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules retating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions tbr 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 affa irs 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

¶135

2t

¶136

i

¶137

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 76 of the Constitution.This Court} however made one exception to the above^{position and the} same is extracted below :

¶138

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified.^Theremaybe cases where irregular apoointments Lnot^illeoal aooointments) as exolained in S.V.^Narayanappa 17967 (71 SCR 72a1, R.N. Naniundaooa f7972⁽¹⁾ c?? ,oo 7^qazl DN f1070 lul Etl77 and referred to in oara 75 above, of dulv^aualified ,,ersons in duly sanctioned^{vacantposts miaht have} been made and the emplovees^{have continuedto} rrtrL Jar jah varrc .t r raata hrtl rtt o intervention of orders of the^courts or^{of tribunals.} The ouestion of reaularization of^{the services of} such emplovees may have to be^consideredon merits in the lioht of the^{principles settledbv this} Court in the cases abovereferred^{to and in the lioht} of this iudgment. In that context,^{the Union of} fndia, the State Governments^andtheir instrumentalities should take^{steps to regularizeas} a one-time measure. the services^{of such irreoularlv} appointed. who have worked for^{ten years or more} in dulv sanctioned^posts but^{not under cover of} orderc of the courts or of tribunals^{and should} further ensure that reaular^{recruitmentsare} undertaken to fill those vacant^{sanctionedoosts} that require to be filled up,^{incases where} temporary emplovees or daily^{wagers are being} now emploved. The^{process must} be^{set in motion} within six months from this^{date. ....}

¶139

"5. It is evident from the above^{that there is an exception} to the generat^principles against^{' regularization' enunciatedin} umadevi, if the following conditions^{are fulfilled :}

¶140

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70^yearsor more in duly sanctioned^post without^{the benefit or protectionof} the interim order of any court or tribunal.^{In other words,the} State Government or its instrumentality^{should haveemployed} the employee and continued him in^{service voluntarilyand} continuously for more than ten^years.

¶141

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not^{be illegal,} even if irregular. Where the appointments^{are not made or} continued against sanctioned^posts or^{where the persons} appointed do not possess the^prescribed minimum^{qualifications,}

¶142

{

¶143

the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

¶144

(iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality. to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten vears without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevidirected that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OO61.

¶145

The term^'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casLtal, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

¶146

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the onetime regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight.. In such circ'umstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise: was completed without considering their cases, or because: the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all dailywage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadev'i, the employer

I J

23

1

concerned should consider^{theircasesalso, as a continuationof} 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 obiect hehind the id direction in oara 53 of llmadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who h2ara ,'rri ,.- ihrn tan rraar< aJ att n without the^protection of anv interim orders of^courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi^was rendered. are considered for reaularizati'ⁿ view of jhAir, ltttrtt n ihri rha departmenE/instrumentalities do not^{perpetuate the} Dractice of emDlovino s on dailv/adhoc/casual for long oeriods and then^periodically regularize them on the oround that thev have^served for more than ten veers. thereby defeating the^{constitutional} or statutorv orovisions relatino to recruitment^and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than^{ten years as on} 7O.4.2OOG (the date of decision in Umadevil without^the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunat, in vacant ,,osf,s,,^possessing the reouisite^{qualification. are} entitled to be considered for regularization.^The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise^of reoula tion within six onths of the d' nrn llmadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlyⁱⁿ reqard a limited few, will not disen tle such employees, the right to be considered for^{reautarization} in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a^one-time measure.

¶152

These appeals have been^{pending for more than four years} after the^-decision in lJmadevi. The^{Appellant(ZilaPanchayat,} Gadag) has not considered the cases of^{respondents of} regularization within six months of the decision^{in Umadevi or} thereafter.

¶153

The Division Bench of the High Court^{has directedthat the} cases of respondents should be considered in accordance^with law. The only further direction that needs be^given, in^{view of} tJmadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a^general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are^{any daily} wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving^{the ZilaPanchayatand if} so whether such employees^{(includingthe respondents)fulfill} the requirements mentioned in^{para 53 of Umadevi.} If^{they fulfill} them, their services have to be^regularized. If^{such an exercise}

¶154

.I

¶155

has already been undertaken by ignoring or ontitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency' of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless fo say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 5.3 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not posses.s the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶156

In the judgment of the Apex Court in "Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Punjab" reported in (2O13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the 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. ft also refused to accept the defence that there were no sanctioned posts

¶157

/ /

¶158

25

¶159

2nal cat +ha..a r^rrc tt rcli ta^{.tri ffrr} +ha Stata to rrfilica services of laroe number of eoDle like he aooella ts for decad It held that "sanctioned oosts do not ll from heaven" and that t e State^{haso createthembva} conscious choice on the basis^{of some rational assessment} of nee Referrino to Umadevi, it held that the^{aDel la nts} befor them were not arbitrarilv^ch en. their initial ot was 'irre st been made tn a cordance ith the tutorv Drocedure orescribed under the Police^{Act. 1861. and the State} cannot be heard to sav^{that thev are not entitled to be} absorbed into the services^{of the State on oermanent} basis as. according to^{it. their aooointments were ourelv} tem rarv and n t aoainst nv sanctio ed oosts c ted bv the State. It was held tha the iudo ent in Um adevi cannot become^{alicenceforexoloitationbv the S} and its i strumentalities^'and either the Government of Puni b nor th se oublic^{sector Banks can continue scha} Dra ice rncon istent with their blioataon to functi nrn accordan ce with the Con itution.

¶160

h x r tn SCC On ti ne SC 7-797 etween "B.Sri nivalusu and others^v

\

Z(t

t

Nellore Municipal^{Corporation Rep.by its Comlnissioner'} Nellore District,^{AndhraPradesh and others"' in Darticular}

¶165

paras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶166

(7) rV G.O. till todaY.^The respondent Municipality^{being a statutory} body is obliged^bY the G.O. 212(supra).^{Inspite of the above} mentioned G.O. the respondents kept^{quite for almost20 years} without regularising the service of the^{appellants and continued} to extract work^{from the appellants.}

¶167

g. In the circumstances,^{refusingthe benefitof the above} mentioned G.O.^{on the ground that the appellantsapproached} the Tribunal belatedly,^{in our opinion, is not iustified. In the} circumstances, the^{appeal is allowedmodifying the order under} appeat by. directing^{that the appettants' services be regularised} with effe,-t from^{the date of their completingtheir five year} continuous service^{as was taid down by this Courtin District} collector/chairperson^{& othersvs. M.L. Singh & ors. 2009(8)} SCC 4BO.

¶168

In^{NAmarkantRai v state of Biharzreported (2o15r 8} scc 265, the^{supreme court held that 'The objective} behind the exception^{carved out in this case was to permit} regularisation of such^{appointment'which are irregular} but not illegal, and^{to ensure appointments/whichare} irregular but not illegal,^{and tqensure security of} employment of those^{personswho had served the State} Government ancl their instrumentatities^{for more than ten} years". In that case. emOloyee was workinq^{for 29 years.}

r

27

n

The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022^passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which^pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy^Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld^{by the} Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of^{2O23 dated} 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex^Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶173

Mandir Trust V Stata af Maharashtra and Others"

¶174

\

¶175

2l{

¶176

"100. The High Courts exercising their^{jurisdictionunderArticle} 226 of the Constitution^{of India, not only have the power to} issue a writ of mandamus^{or in the nature of mandamus,but}

¶177

In all such cases, the^{High Court mustissue a writ of} mandamus and^give directions^{to compel performance in an} appropriate and lawful^{mannerof the discretion conferredupon} the Government or a^{public authority. "}

¶178

The Division Bench of^{this Court in its Judgment}

¶179

dated 1O.O6.2013^{passed in W.A.Nos.782of 2O1O and 854} of 2OL2 while upholding^{the Judgment dated O8.O9.201O} passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and^{C.C.No.48 of 2OO8} observed as under:-

¶180

"Further, it is manifest from the material on^{recordthat the} services of the similarly^{placed personswho approachedthe law} Courts were regularized.^{The appellant-Corporationalso issued} various office orders/circu^{la rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992,} 06.10.2007 and latest^{being 4.7.2OO9for regularization of} casual/contract employees,^{It is also to be seen that Section 25-} T of the ID Act^{prohibitsunfair labour practice by any employer} or workman. As can be seen^{from the factualscenarioof the} cases on hand, engaging^{the respondentsfor such a long and} continuous^period of time on casual^{basis is nothing but unfair} labour practlce attracting the^{provisionsof Section 25-T of the} ID Act. l'he learned Single^{Judgewhile relying on the decisions} of the Apex Court,^{rightlyheld that the respondentsare entitled} to regularization as directed in the^{impugned orders, as the} learned single Judge considered^{all the aspectsof the matterin} detail, in the^{proper perspective,which, in our considered view} does not warrant interference in these^appeals."

29

't;

W

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD page 282 at para 16 and para 18

¶185

observed as under:-

¶186

"16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article L41 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 t994 and G.O. Ms. 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 L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, while^giving directionsⁱⁿ Para No.53 of the^judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of t994 100 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, do not whittle'down the width and the^judgment in Manjula Bashini's case (supra), does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of^its judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to^deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the^judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra).

¶187

For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.L442 of 2OL4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the^judgment in Uma Devi's case^(supra). This process must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶188

30

¶189

.-\ Sr

¶190

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.L of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2019 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD^page

¶191

379 at paras 45t 48 and para 5O observed as under:-

¶192

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30)^years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously wor-king without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

¶193

It is not known why the 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (supra), as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on LO.4.2006 and subject them to a^process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services.

¶194

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 2L of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to regularize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners complete 10 years of service on daily wages from the initial dates of their appointment. But, they shall not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

¶195

This Court opines that in the oresent case, the resoondents failed to discharge their duty in examininq the request of the petitioners for regularization of petitioners' services, who are working as Sanitary Jawan.

¶196

I^I

¶197

3I

¶198

one for all purposes bv granting last grade pav with

¶199

law.

¶200

consideration of oetitioners' case for^grant of the relief as

and extracted above

2a.

,

minimum period of 5 years as on 25.11.1993 since it is the

\

32

U

Sinoh and Other in Darticula r at oara No-54 and its sub-

¶209

, extracted above) and also as^per the verdict's of the

¶210

extracted above).

¶211

Takinq into consideration:-

¶212

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioners and the Iearned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4,

¶213

f rrrr_ /

¶214

JJ

¶215

c) The averments^{made in the counter affidavit filed on} behalf of the respondent^{Nos.3 and 4, in particular,para} nos.3 and 4^(referred to and^{extracted above)}

¶216

d) The observations of the^{Apex Court in the various} judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:

¶217

ix2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scc Pase 3e6 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12Og (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) l4scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC t797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ol 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) zOlL (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶218

e) The Division Bench order of^{thisCourt dated} 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of^{2O1O and 854 of} 2Ot2 while uploading the Judgment dated^O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶219

}E

¶220

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O17 (reterred to and extracted above),

¶221

g) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23(J57 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above).

¶222

The Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners claim for regularization of petitioners services in terms of orders passed by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 2OO6(4) SCC Page 1 from the date of completion of 1O years of service as followed by this Court in W.p.No.243l7 of 2OO7 dated O8.O9.2O1O reported in 2O11 (1) ALD,^page 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10.06.2013, and also as per Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 19.09,2017 passed in W.p.No.2ZZt7 of 2OO7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD page Zg2 and atso the Division Bench Judgment of this court dated 21,.o4.2o2o passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2Ot9 in W,,p.No.23OS7 of zOLg reported in 2O2O(4)ALD page 37g which had attained finality, within a period of four (o4) weeks from

¶223

/
/

¶224

JJ

¶225

the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the various^judgments (referred to and extracted above), and in particular, para No.53 of the judqment of the Apex Couft in the case of State of Karnataka v. llma Devi and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶226

Miscellaneous petitions, if ofly, pending in this Writ

¶227

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶228

That Rute Nisi has been^{made absoluteas abovet} , : Witness THE HON'BLE^{THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL; oh this} Thursday, The Twelfth^{Day Of June Two Thousand And TwentyFive}

¶229

SD/.C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

\

/TRUE COPY//.

SECTION OFFICER

One fair copy to the Hon'ble^{Mrs Justice Surepalli Nanda} (for Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal)

¶234

To,