Mukkiri Rajanna Vs The State of Telangana

Narra Prabhakar, S/o Devaiah, Aged 49 years, All the petitioners are working as Time Scale workers in Regional Agricultural Research station at polasal Jagtial District.

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Telangana, Rep by its principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co_ operation Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶19

Ptof .Jaya shankar Telangana state Agricultural university, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad Rep by its Registrar.

¶20

3- The Associate Director of Research Regional Agricultural Research station, Polasa, Jagitial District.

¶21

....RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Govt. letter No.2964/Agril.llllA1l2o19 dt.'18.03.2020 of 1st Respondent and after perusing the

¶23

same, set aside the impugned Govt. letter dt_18.03.2020 and as well as the consequential Memo No.177lLablA1l20'19 dt.24.O3.202O of 2nd Respondent, by declaring them as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Order 11.26.04.20.1g in Wp No.9130/2019 read with the order dt.20.1 1.2019 in Review pel tion lA No.02l2019 in wP No.9130/20 19 and contrary to law and consequenfly dire c t the Respondents to forthwith regularise the services of the petitioners from the lates the petitioners have completed (10) years service, without insisting corr lletion of (5) years minimum service as on 25.11 .1993 and with all other cc rsequential benefits, monetary or otherurrise.

¶24

|.A.NO:1 OF 2020

¶25

Petition Under Section 151 cPc praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m I / be pleased to grant interim directions directing Respondents 2 and 3 to pay r onthly salary to the Petitioners equivalent to the salary of a regular employee rn .l e same cadre, in the light of the order dt.26.04.2019 in wp No.913012019 r rad with the order dt.20.11.20'19 in Review Petition l.A.No.0212019 in wp Nr 9130/2019, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI V.JAGAPATHI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGp FOR SERVICES -l

¶28

counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI VEDA VIKAS l\ UDIRAJ vuppARl The Court made the following ORDER

¶29

HON'BLE^{MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶30

PETIT^ONNo.5470 0

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard^{Sri V' lagapathi' learned counsel appearing on} behalf^{of the petitioners'learned AssistantGovernment} Pleader^{forServices-I' appearing onbehalf ofthe} respondent^{No'1' and Sri Veda Vikas MudiraiVuppari'} learned^{StandingCounselfor PJTAU' appearing on behalf} of resPondent^{Nos'2 and 3'}

¶33

The^{petitioners filed the writpetitionseeking the} following^relief:

¶34

". to issue^{Writ'Order or direction'more Particularly on} Mandamus'^{calling for the records}

¶35

in the^nature "'*l.'t "' relatinq^{to tne cout LefterNo 296 alAgr\l 'llU AU 2Ol9 '} dated^{18'03'2020of ln respondentand after perusing} the^{same' set asidethe impugned Govt' Letter dated} 18'03^{2020 and as well as the consequentialMemo} No'l?71^{Lab/ o'i} 'O"t'u''nn^{zou dated 24o3'2o2o of2"d} them^{as arbitrary'illegal'}

¶36

respondent'^o' contrarv^{t" tn" o]o"Io aled 26'oq'2o19in w P No'9130} of 2019^{reaO itn'ft"O'0"' dated 20'11'2019 in Review} Petition^l'A'No02 "'^{20tn in w P'No'9130of 2019and} contrary^{to ra lna consequentlydirect the respondents} to forthwith^r"n''un "pe ition"rs^{t"the servicesof the petitioners from} (10)^years

¶37

the^{dates tne} have :ompleted service'^{witnout insisting completion of (5)years} and^{with all other}

¶38

minimum '"*tt" ut-on "'"'""

¶39

2

¶40

SN- .I wt, 15107 2020

¶41

consequential benefits, monetary or otherwis l, and to pass.. ".

¶42

The case of the petitioners in brief as pe r the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by i e petitioners in support of the present writ petition is that th€, petitioners had been working as time scale workers in :l r respondent,s University. On an earlier occasion petitioners fi r d W.p.No.9130 of 2079 for regularization of petitioners service:; for sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits. This Co I ,t passed order dated 26.04.2019 directing the respondent Nos : and 3 to send proposals to 1tt respondent for the regularizatio-r of the services of the petitioners. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 firec Review petition vide I.A.No.2 of 20t9 against the order dated 26. )4.2OLg passed in W.P.No.9130 of 2019 and the said Revie,/ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2019. The p:titioners have also filed Contempt Case No.437 of 20it against the respondents herein. SubsequenUy, the 2nd respor Jent vide letter dated 28.02.2020 sent proposals to 1rt r:;pondent with misleading information and the 1tt respondent ,,n the basis of misleading information issued letter dated 18,ir3.2020 to 2"d respondent stating that the petitioners have not completed

¶43

J

¶44

SN, J wP 15407 2020

¶45

minimum required service of five years as on 25.11.1993. Hence, the petitioners are not eligible for regularization of their services. In pursuance to the Govt. Letter dated 18.03.2020,^the 2nd respondent issued impugned Memo dated^{24.03.2020to the} petitioners informing that the petitioners are not eligible^for regularization of their services due to^{non-fulfilling of the} conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212,^{dated 22.04.1994. The} petitioners further submit that the impugned letter dated 18.03.2020 had been issued by the^{1't respondent mechanically} and without application of mind rejecting^{the case of the} petitioners for regularization of their services. Aggrieved^thereby the petitioners approached this^{Court by filing the present Writ} Petition.

¶46

4. PERU ED THE RECO RD.

¶47

(A) The relevant oortion of the order dat^ed 26.O4.20t9 oassed in W.P.^{No.913Oof2019 in oarticu lar} para Nos .4to7 are extra ted hereu nde r:

¶48

"4. The^petitioners contend^{that they are all appointed} as Class-IV employees^{during 1989 and they were} paid their salaries initially on daily^wagebasis. Subsequently, minimum^{time scale ofpay was} extended to them^{with DA and HRA' Theycontend} that though they are^{working for more than three}

¶49

4

¶50

SN. J \'t, 15J07 2020

¶51

decades, the respondents are not consi(llring their cases for regularization of services. Tlt:y further contend that the 3..d respondent has submitted proposals to 2nd respondent for regularizali tn of their services but the 2nd respondent is not fonr arding the same to the 1st respondent. Therefore, tl- r y contend that they deserve reg ularization of services n terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court I 3ported in the State of Karnataka and ors vs.Umac evi.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners cc.rtend that considering the contention of the per.i ioners, a direction may be issued to the respondents o consider the cases of the petitioners for regularizall )n of their services forthwith notionally from the datel; petitioners have completed ten years of service, for .l e purpose of counting qualifying service of the pel i ioners for sanction of pension and other pensionary b( nefits.

¶53

Learned Standing Counsel for respon Jent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the cases of the petiti,) rers would be examined and necessary proposals wc L ld be sent to the 1'r respondent, if the petitioners ar( in service for 30 years, within a period of two weeks and if the proposals are submitted by the 2nd responr ,ent to the 1't respondent within a period of two wee < ;, then the 1't respondent shall consider and pass , ppropriate orders in accordance with law in another e ght weeks thereafter.

¶54

I Accordinolv. the writ Petition is r sposed of d irecti no resoond ent Nos,2 and 3 to se nd r als st res onden wl h rd to e reo u la rization of services of the T etitio n rs within a oeriod of two weeks anr| the 1tt resDondent, on rece Dtof such oroor 1 ;a ls, sha ll consider the same and oass aooroorLj teo ders

¶55

SN, J wt, 15407 2020

¶56

)

¶57

c o n hl w w hi a riod of h weekst er after. No costs. "

¶58

(B). Th r le n ortion of th rd a 20.Ll .2o19 in Review I.A.No.2 of2o19 in W.P .No. 9130 of

¶59

L ts xtr c h r n r

¶60

"This Review petition is fiied seeking revrew of the orders passed by this Court on 26.O4.2}tg in W.p.No.9130 of 2OL9 on the ground that the writ petitioners are not working against the sanctioned vacant posts and that writ petitioners have not fulfilled the conditions set out in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.7gg4 and contend that appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law.

¶61

This Court, having regard to the said submissions of review petitioners is of the considered view that since the writ petitioners were discharging their duties for the Iast 3 decades, the contention of the review petitioners that they have not fulfilled the condition of completion of minrmum 5 years of service as on 2S.11.1993 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.Z2.O4.tgg4 cannot be accepted and with regard to other contention that writ petitioners are not working against the sanctioned vacant posts is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that working of the writ petitioners for more than 3 decades itself discloses that they have worked against the permanent posts.

¶62

This Court, vide order dated 26.O4.2019 disposed of W.P.No.9130 of 2OI9 directing the respondents 2 and 3 to send proposals to the 1'l respondent with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioners and upon

¶63

6

¶64

SN. J wP 15407 2020

¶65

such proposals being received by the 1't resporr( ent, the lst respondent was directed to consider the sarl : and pass appropriate orders. Though the review peti'i)ners were directed to send the proposals oF the writ pel i roners who have put in more than 3 decades of servicrl to i:he 1't respondent, the review petitioners without fLI lishing the said proposals to the 1't respondent filed lre present review petition. Further, a perusal of the orde - passed in W.P.No.9130 of 2Ol9 would disclose that th€ said order was passed at the admission stage with the co1;ent of both the parties. Therefore, the contention of :he review petitioners that the Writ Petition was dispos€ I of at the admission stage without giving any opportunity to them, is totally in correct.

¶66

In view oF the above, there are no grou't is to review the order passeci by this Court in W.P.No.9._ iO of 2019, dated 26.04.2019.

¶67

Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismis;ed."

¶68

(c) The order imouqned of the 2"d r,g tDondent vide Memo No.L77 /Labl AL/2OL9. dated 24.03.2 02O issued to

¶69

the oetitioners is extracted h e reu nder:

¶70

"PROFESSOR ]AYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE AGRIC L L^-URIST UNIVERSITY

¶71

ADIYN. OFFICE: RAJENDRANAGAR: HYDEF^qBAD-30

¶72

mo No. 177 1 2019 elatee_^14.03.2020. Sub-PITSAU-RARS, Jagtial-w.p.No.9130 of 2 )19 filed by Sri Mukkiri Rajanna & 6 others, casual labour (M--: ,) RARS, Jagtial - WP disposed of - Proposals sent for egularization to Government as per the directicns of the Jon,ble Court - Proposal Negatived - Communicated - Regardi^.g.

¶73

1

¶74

SN. J \,P l5.lo7 2020

¶75

Ref:- 1. order dated. 26.04.2079 of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P.No.9130/2019 respectively.

¶76

Lr. No. 2964lA9 ri.IlI I A7 / 20t9, dated 25. 05. 20 19 of the APC & Principal Secretary to Government, Government ofTelngana, Agrl. & Coop. Department, Hyderabad.

¶77

University lr.No.l7 7 / Lab/A1IRARS, lagitia l/2020, dated 2A.2.2O2O addressed to the APC & Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶78

1r.No.2964149rl.lII/Al/2O19, dt : 18.03.2020 of the APC & Secretary to Government, Agril. & Cooperation Department, Telangana Secretariat, *** Hyderabad.

¶79

The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (F.W.P.C.III) department datedi 22-4-1994 wherein^it was ordered to regularize the services of the^persons appointed on daily wages or consolidated pay and who have^worked continuously for a minimum^period of 5^years and are^being continued as on 25-11-1993 subject to fulfillment of^conditions therein. Later, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.231,^Fin. & Planning (FWPC-III) Department, dated: 16-10-1998^stating that the services of those^persons who are continuing^{on rollsas} on 25-11-1993 and having completed a continuous^minlmum period of 5 years of services on or before 25-1I-1993 only shall be regularized in the substantive vacancies that^{aroseafter 25-} 5-1995. The University has adopted the said^{G.Os and has been} regularizing the services of the eligible casual^{labour rn the} substantive vacancies in each Unit as and^{when the vacancies} arose duly following the Seniority,^Rule of^{Reservation after} approval by the Government.

¶80

Seven (7) casual labour viz., Sri.Mukkiri^{Rajanna and 6} others who are working as casual labour^{(MTS) at RARS, lagtial} nave filed W.P.No.9130 of 2O19,^{prayingthe Court to issue a} Writ, Order or directlon, more^particularly one^{in the natureoF} Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of^{2'd Respondent, in not} considering the Petitioners for regularization^{of their services, as} arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and^{contrarytolawand} consequently direct the Respondents to^{forthwithregularize} services of petitioners, notionally from the^{dates Petitioners} have completed (10) years service,^{for the purposeof countlng} their qualitying service for sanction of^{Penslon and other} Pensionary benefits, and with all other^{consequential benefits,} monetary otherwise.

¶81

8

¶82

SN, J \'P 15407 2020

¶83

The Hon'ble High Court vide orders d,r ed: 26.04.2019 disposed of the above Wp as follows:

¶84

Accordingly, the Writ^petition is dispo ed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to send proposals to 1t respondent with regard to the regularization of services of the I e tioners within a period of two weeks and the 7't respondent, t t receipt of such proposals, shall consider the same and pass at oropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period )f eight weeks thereafter, No costs.

¶85

Out of total 41 casual labour who are or rolls working at Regional Agricultural Research Station, lagtial, )7 casual labour have filed Writ^petition No. 9130/2019. In c ledience of the above orders of the Hon,ble High Court the rrop65315 66 g6" petitioners in the above Wp were sent to th(, Government for regularization with all details of the petitior 3rs as per the directions of the Hon'ble Hjgh Court for is:;r e of necessary o rders.

¶86

EG rnm vt ref ce lth cited. has tnf rmed the U niversitv that on oeru sal ( f the oroposal submitted b the Reqistrar, PJTSAU it wa s o erved that h ual I our o h n j( rs in WP No. 913 ol20t9 have not comoleted I mrn 1Um requ ired tc 5 a n2 1.1 f rrt n the date of attn m n as u a ur. s ,re ribed tn G.O.!ls.No,2 12 Fin.& Pino .(FW.PC .III ) - Deot., dated .o4. 94 a hin a e^Petitioners [n WP No.14 709 t 2019 viz., Sri M ukkiri Raia!na&6others are not eliq ible for req ula rization of heir I ervices due to n -fulfi h iti n l:ri .M o,2L Fi P w.F( .III) D Dt., da d:2 2.O4.1994

¶87

In view of the above, Sri Mukkiri Rajarr a and 6 others, petitioners in Wp No. 9t3O/20L9 are hereby r formed that the Government has negatived the proposal of ttr ir regularization as they have not fulfilled the conditions in G.Cr. i4s.No.212 Fin.& PiJr9. (FW.PC.III) Dept., dated: 22.04.1994 Co:. es of references J^" and 4'' ctted are herewith endorsed.

¶88

To

¶89

S.SUDHt_:R KUMAR RE(i STRAR

¶90

Sri Mukkiri Rajanna & 6 oth ers, casual laborrr s (MTS), RARS, lagtial. Th rough the Associate Director of t esea rch, RARS, J agtia l. Cc: the Associate Director of Research, RARS, -. gtial //F.B.o//

¶91

9

¶92

SN. J wP 15407 2020

¶93

(D) The learned Stan dino Counsel aooearino for on

¶94

behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 olacinq reliance on the averments ma de in the unter affidavit in oarticular Pa rao ra Dh No.15 extracted hereunder, contended that petitioners are not entitled for orant of anv relief.

¶95

"15. In reply to para 10, I submit that the oetitioners herein have not completed (5)^years of service as sn 25-11- 1993 ( m h f m nt as Casual Labour as rescn e in G.O.Ms.No.212 dl:22.04.1994 and the same fact has been brought to the notice of the Government and sought concurrence for regularization of the petitioners based on the Order of the Hon'ble High Court as the concurrence of the Government is mandatory for regularization of the Casual Labour into vacant sanctioned post. The Government has th osal of the 2nd res o ntv rsit Dertain inq to the reqularization of the^petitignels hclqin tlicle Lr.no.2964/ Aori. III/A7/20t9. dt: 18.03.20 20 statina that the casual labour who are Detitio ners in W.P No.9130/2019 o are not eliqible for re ulari zation as thev have not^comDleted minimum requi red service of 5 vears as on 2 5.11.1993^from h date of a ointment as r as rescribe tn h G. O. Ms. No 21,2. Fin. & Plno.^(F.W. P.C.III) Deoartment. dated: 22.Q4.1994."

¶96

DISCUSSION AND CON LUSIO N

¶97

The learned counsel appearing on behalf^{of the petitioners} contends that the request of the^{petitionersfor regularization oF} the petitioners services with all^{other consequential benefits from} the date of completion of ten^{(10) years oF service of the} petitioners without insisting completion of^{five (5) years of}

¶98

l0

¶99

SN. J wP t5407 2020

¶100

minimum service as on 25.11.1993 had been r: ected vide Lr. No. 2964/Agrl.Iil(Al)/20L9 by the 1't res6 ondent dated 18.03.2020 and the consequential memo dai :d 24.03.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent on the ground that petitioners did not have five years of minimum service as on i 5.11.1993 and intimating the same to the petitioners is illegal, ir bitrary without application of mind, in a mechanical manner, con.rary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, in^.he order dated 1,9.09.2077 passed in Writ Petition No.272t7 of it 17.

¶101

The learned Standing Counsel appearing rt I behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioners service , had not been regularized in view of the fact that the G( vernment had negatived the proposals of University for regul rrization of the petitioners herein vide proceedings dated 18.( 3.2OZO stating that the petitioners were casual labour, as su:r they are not eligible for regularization since they have rot completed minimum required service of 5 years as on 25.11 .1993 from the date of appointment as casual labour as prescribed in G.O.Ns.No.212, Fin. & ptng. (FW pC.III) Dept., dated 22.04.7994, and therefore the petitioners are nct entiiled for the relief as prayed for in the present petition.

¶102

II

¶103

S^-, J wP 15407 2020

¶104

A bare perusal of the order, dated 26.O4.2OL9 passed in Writ Petition No.913O of 2O19 in favour of the petitioners herein clearly indicates that the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereunder to send the proposals to the 1't respondent with regard to the regularization of services of the petitioners herein within a period of two (O2) weeks and the 1't respondent upon receipt of such proposals is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (O8) weeks thereafter.

¶105

The bare perusal of record further indicates that the respondents herein had filed Review I.A.No.2 of 2O19 in Writ Petition No.913O of 2019 mainly on the following g rou nds.

¶106

(i) Firstly, that the Writ petitioners in W.P. No.913O of 2O19 are not working against the sanctioned vacant posts and

¶107

(ii) Secondly that the Writ petitioners in W.P No.913O of 2O19 had not fulfilled the conditions set out in G.O.Ms.No.21 2, dated 22.O4.L994.

¶108

12

¶109

SN. J wP_15407 2020

¶110

ThisCour in its Judo ment da e d20 .1 .201 9 pa ssed EV ew f. o ot2 1 inW.P. N 13t) of 2019 ealt wtth h bo e two s ct tc n ti n I a ised bv the resD ondents herein n I neo tived t es; ne and Verv arl s rV dth t h r ar o r u nds !o revlew the r e s ed nW. .No.91 Oof 2 d e⁾ 26. 4 o19

¶111

The A exC urtint he IUdq me nt re ort( lin (2 o2o)1 s c L in Pr m si hv s fU arP ra e h a nd oth rs a D ra 36 h ld as unde r:

¶112

"36. There are some of th e employees who ha l not been regularized in spite of hav tng rendered the servi es for 3040 or more years where as they have been su p,l ann uated. As they have worked in the work- charged esta rlishment, not against an v pa rticular project, their servicr: have been reg ularized under the G overnment it stru ought ctionsto and even as per the decision of this Court r State of Karnataka vers us Umadevi (3 )11 This Court r the saii decision has la id down that rn case services lave been rendered for m ore than ten years without the cc zer of the Cou rt's orde r, as one-time measure, the se -vices be reg ularized of such employees In the facts o' the case those employee s who have worked for should have been regularized. It wo uld ten not yea be r troor per mo tore regulate them for consideration of .egularizatiorr as oth e rs have been reg treated as a r ularized, we direct that their se v ices be egular one However. it is made lear thai they shall not be entitled to clai ming any dues ol lifferen ce rn wages had they been con tinued in servrc< regula rlY before attaining the age of su perannuation. Thr,, shall be entitled ro hto receive larthe pensioli h nase tif they n har.1e _ servicesretired e r h f th ti tnr a for ts ofn sll n,"t e l Inted enteredas

¶113

l3

¶114

SN, J wP r 5407 2020

¶115

The Aoex Cou rt in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reo rted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 39 6 laid orinciole that the State should not keeD a Derson in temoorarv or ad hoc service for lonq Deriod and have to treat such Dersons as reqular one.

¶116

I 11. Para No.53 of the of the udqment of the Aoex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs, Umadevi, dated 10.O4.2006 reoorted in⁽² 06) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereu nder: -

¶117

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular aopointments^(not illeqal aDoointments) as explained in S.V. NaravanapDa R12 .N. N n n a 1 72 1 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naqaraian 1L979⁽⁴¹ SqC 5O7'l and referred to in Dara 15 above. of dulv oualified narsons in dul sanctioned vaca^It t^{nncfcrr ierlrt hrrra} been made and the emolovees have contin ued to work for ten vears or more but without thc intervention of orders of hecourts or of trib U nals. The ouestaon of reoularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the Iiqht of the orinciples ettled bv this Court in the a ove referre nd in I ud ment. In that co the Un^tatft af rndir fha State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steos to reoularize as a one-time measure, the servtces of such irreoularlv aooointed, who have worked for ten^vea rs or more in^dulv ca natinn ?raic+c but not u nder v rofor^A ft^ha

¶118

l4

¶119

SN,.I \'P ti407 2020

¶120

cou rts orof ribunals and shou ld furtt ensu re a e lar r rut ts re un ertak r o ll th s a nt an o ts h ut c se w er ra m obe filled up re EI now e e T e ro esssrrdamustilvbewsetaqers o on wi ln tx nthsf m hi da

¶121

!2. The ud ment of the ADex Cou rt date d 2 L2.2024 DOrted tn 2024 Law s t sc ) L209 in JiI I o Anita and othersv Union of fndi a and ot er an l the relevant pa raqraD h Nos. 1 2, L3, 24, 26. 27and 2A are extra h re nd er:

¶122

" 1_2.. Des.pate being labelted as ,,pa I t_time 1v_o_rt<91s," .^{the appelants pe.io.-;;'} i;;r. essential tasks on a daily .nJ io.,r,l *"r, basis over extensive periods, ,r"gi;;^';;rn over a decade to nearty two'aecuiei] il'"i. :lg_1g.-.Tt^{was not sporadico.} t.rri,o.".y 1 T"ty.S,^{instead,it was recurrent,} r€9ular, and akin to the responsibititie. 'tiiiJilv associated with sanctioned posts. Uo1-,:oier, the respondents did not engage .ny o-tt e. personnet for these tastl -auiiril --if,u appellants tenure, underscoring' ifr" indispensable nature of their work. -

¶123

that h e 1 it. as n t 1r the ell n s nn al fu d men tal to efu nt h o The rec _r rring nature of these duties necessi tates their classification as regular posts rrrespective c f how their i n itia I engagements we re labelled. It i; also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing o, these

¶124

t5

¶125

SN. J wP 15407 2020

¶126

same tasks to private agencies after the appellants'termination demonstrates the in he re nt need for these services. This act oF outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

¶127

24, The landmark^judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation 197 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sectorf illustrating the consequences oF misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their proFits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature oF the work perFormed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiqhliohts the iudiciary's role in rectafyinq such m isclassifications and ensurin o that workers receive fair treatment.

¶128

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 cateooricallv held that em oloveesⁱⁿ

¶129

16

¶130

S". J \rP t5,107 20?0

¶131

i!'reoular aooointments, who were enoa.! ted in dulv sanctioned posts and had 5:rved conti nuouslv for more than ten vears s lould be considered for reoularization as ;r onettme meas ure. However, the laudable int tnt of the^judgment is being subverted when inst t:tions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately rejr:, t the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but mere r lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gover lment departments often cite the judgment in Uftr r Devi (supra) to argue that no vested rir; rt to regularization exists for temporary empi ryees, overlooking the judgment's < xplicit acknowledgment of cases where regularizir ion is a ppropriate. ts tive !i nd i;torts g :ivelv weaponizinq it aoainst emplovees wh(I^have rendered indispensable services -^over decades.

¶132

In light oF these considerations, 1 our opinion, it is imperative for gove- tment departments to lead by example in provid r g fair and stable employment. Engaging worker; on a temporary basis for extended periods, esl) tcially when their roles are integral to the organi;:; tion,s functioning, not only contravenes interrt tional labour standards but also exposes the orgar iuation to legal challenges and undermines eml: oyee morale, By ensuring fair employ ment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigl, rtion, promote job security, and uphol<l the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach : ligns with international standards and se tJ a positive precedent for the private sect f,r to follow, thereby contrabuting to the <r reralt betterment of labour practices in the cor ntry.

¶133

l7

¶134

SN, J \,P t 5407 2020

¶135

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 aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:

¶136

i. The termination orders dated 27 .70.20 18 are^quashed ;

¶137

It. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services requla ised forthwith. However, the aDoellants shall not be entitled to anv Decu n ta rv benefits/back waoes for the oeriod h have no w t rbutw be entitled to cont nuitv of services would r e be idcounted e od for n their he samDostretiral benefits. "

¶138

The Judoment oft he ADex Court dated 31.01.2025 OTHER V. reported n 2025 INSC 144 in^{*SHRIPAL AND A} NAGAR N GAM, GHAZIABAD" in oarticular, th releva nt

¶139

Dara Nos.1 5 to¹⁹ are extra cted^her u nder:

¶140

"15. tt is manifest that the^{ADoellant Workmen} contin uouslv rendered their services^overseveral vears, sometimes soanni o more than^a decade. n if c !+- i - -.! r-+^' ,^ I we r duc the E olover's failure to furnish^{such records-} ta A lrea+ianc fa / so-^{r lln} w^c all nder ilt h avors iurispru dence. Indian^{labour law stronqlv di} oerpe al dailv-waq e or contract^{ual enoaqementsin} nce h w nature Mora!!v a d leoal lv, orkers wh fUlfit onqoin^q municioal reouirements vear after vear n mt mm ril le rt tn h nc of r

¶141

I8

¶142

Sf,-,.1 wP_ 15407 2020

¶143

aoreement. At this juncture, it would be apr-opriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ' emporary" employment practices as done by a recent jL ( gement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in t I r following paragraphs:

¶144

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary I nployment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that advers ( ly affects workers' rights and job security. In t re private sector, the rise of the gig economy he s led to an increase in precarious employment ar-; ngements, often characterized by lack of benefits, ( b security, and fair treatment. Such practices I ave been criticized for exploiting workers and I rdermining labour standards. Government institutior s entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness ind justice, bear an even greater responsibility to tvoid such exploitative employment practices. V/ ren public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrime rtal trends observed in the gig economy but i);o sets a concerning precedent that can erode publi - trust in governmental operations.

¶145

It is a disconcerting reality thal temporary employees, particularly in government tstitutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploit;.ion. While the foundational purpose oF temporai' contracts may have been to address short-term , r seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a nechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evad,r long-term obligations owed to employees. The:r, practices ma n ifest in several ways:

¶146

. M isus of "Temoorarv" La bels: ..1^:mplovees e noaoed for work that is essentia l,^recurrino, and inteoral to the functionino of an nstitution are often labelled as "temD 0 ra rv" or "contra ual," even when their rt! es mirror em uch miscl assification deorives worker of the d io n itv. securitv, and ben ef its tl"! t reoular emolove s are entitled to. desoite I erform in q iden tica I tasks.

¶147

t9

¶148

SN, J wP r5407 2020

¶149

. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are trequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This^practice undermines the principles of natural^justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary 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 equa lly sig n ifica nt.

¶150

. 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.

¶151

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied^{fundamentalbenefits} such as pension,^provident fund,^{healthinsurance,} and paid leave, even when their tenure^spans decades. This lack of social security^subjectsthem and their families to undue^{hardship, especiallyin} cases of illness. retirement, or^unforeseen circumstances."

¶152

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^{uncertainstatus.} While the High Court recognized^{the importanceoF their} work and hinted at eventual^{regularization, it failed to} afford them continuity of^{service or meaningful back wages} commensurate with the^degree of^{statutoryviolation} evident on record.

¶153

In light of^these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of^the Appellant Workmen stands in

¶154

20

¶155

SN. ] \'P 15.107 2020

¶156

violation of the most basic labour law^principie :^. Once it^is established that their services were termin.l :d^without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.'^Industrial Disputes Act, 7947, and that he we el !qaqed in essential, oerennial duties, these worker:i cannot be releoated o oeroetual uncertain tv.^Whileq rncerns of municioal budoet a d comoliance with^r, rcruitment fl nsid ration u !s do^not a bsolve t e Emolover of statutorv obl !l rations^or neoate eouitable entatl em ents Indeed. br reaucratic limitations cannot rumD the leoitimat() riqhts^qf workmen who have served continuouslv i r de facto reoular roles for an extended oeriod

¶157

The imouoned ord er of the Hioh Cr^q rrt. to the extent thev confine the Aooellant Workm,: r to future dailv-waqe engaoement without corl inuitv or meaninqful back waqes, is herebv set asic e with the followinq directions

¶158

i. The discontinuation of the Appellant Wo rkme n's services. eFfected without compliance r /ith Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Indusl r a I Disputes Act, 1947 , is declared illegal. AI orders or communications term inating their :;, rvices are quashed. In consequence, the Appellz r t Workmen shall be treated as continuing in serri e from the date of their termination, for all purpo:;, s, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶159

II. The Respondent Employer shall^{- ,instate} the Appellant Workmen in their respecti'/' posts (or posts akin to the duties they previousll performed) within four weeks from the date of tlr , judgment. Their entire^period of absence⁽ fronr the date of termination until actual reinstatemrl rt) shall be counted for continuiW of servi ( 3 and all conseouential be efits, such as s riority and elioibilitv for Dromotions. if anv

¶160

III. Considering the length of service, t re Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of tl- < back wages from the date of their discontinuatio until their actual reinstatement. The Respond(:r t Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within t rree months from the date of their reinstatement.

¶161

2t

¶162

sN. l wP I i407 2020

¶163

IV. The ResDondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for reoularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months fro the date of reinsta ment. du considerino the fact that thev have oerformed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent Dosts. In assessinq reqularizatio n, the Emolover shall not imoose educational or dural r ctivel reouirements were never aoolied to the Aooellant Workmen or to similarlv situated r m lo e Tot that sanctioned vacancies for such^{duties exist} or are reour red. the Resoondent Em^{olover shall} expedite all necessarv administrative Drocesses to ensure these lonqtime emDlovees^arenot indefinitelv retai ned on dailv waoes^{contrarv to} statutorv and eouitable norms.

¶164

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."

¶165

L4. The A x Court in a iudoment r oorted in^{( 2o17) 1} Suoreme Court Cases¹⁴⁸ ,^{in State ofPuniab and others} vs Jaoiit Sinoh a d others at^{Paras 54} nd its sub- Da ras 1 2 of the s m bser su

¶166

"54 "The Futt Bench of the High Court,^{while adjudicating} upon the above controversy^{had concluded,that temporary} eimptoyees were not^{entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-} scale, merely for the^{reason,that the activitiescarriedon by} daily-wagers and regular^{employeesweresimilar' The full bench} however-, made two exceptions.^{Temporary employees, who fell} in either of the two^{exceptions, were heldentitled to wagesat} the minimum of the^{pay-scale drawnby regular employees' The} exceptions recorded^{by the full benchof the High Court in the} impugned^{judgment are extracted hereunder:'}

¶167

22

¶168

SN. J \,P 1i407 2020

¶169

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contr tctual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, i, appointed after undergoing a selection process based -t ton fairness and equality of opportunity to all other e'i tible candtdates, shall be entrtled to minimum of the regt I tr pay scale from the date of engagement.

¶170

(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or cont-, ctual appointees are not appointed against regular san: ioned posts and their services are availed continuou:;t ,, with notional breaks, by the State Government or it; instru menta lities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 70 'ears, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointee shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay sc,,le without any allowances on the assumption that w trk of perennial nature is available and having worked f<tt such long period of time, an equitable right is created irt such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, r any, may have to be considered separately in terms of l,gally permissibte scheme.

¶171

(3) In the event, a claim is made for nt limum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daity wager/ ad hoc or contractual employee s tall be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and tv o months."

¶172

The iudoment of the Aoex Court reDor ed in 201 9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka r d oth r v M .L.Kesari and othe in oarticu la r Da ras ! to 9 reads as

¶173

u nd er:

¶174

The decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma e twa rendered on 10.4.2006^(reDorted in 2006 G) SCC 1) In that case, a Constitution Bench of thi's Court held that at )ointments made without following the due process or the 'ules relating to appointment did not confer any right on tlt, appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regL tarization or reengagement nor make their service perman€ 1t, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under A- icle 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directrc ts for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unle! s the recruitment

¶175

23

¶176

SN, J ufP r5407 2020

¶177

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 instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporaryt contractualt 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 :

¶178

"53. One asDect needs to e clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular aDDO intmen ts^(not illeaal NADDA aDDointments ) as exolained in S.V. Nar,^a 7 67 7 scR 728 a a 7972 SCC 4ogl and B.N. Nasaraian [7979 G) SCC 5O7l d ferred to in r, of dul ua p n dulv sanctioned vacant Dosts mioht have been made and e emolovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of o rders of the courts or^o t^tribunals. The ouestion of reqularization of the services of such emolo es mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles ttled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lisht of this udoment. In that context, the Union of India, the stafe Governments and their instrume ntalities should ke steDs to reoula rrze as ne- tme measu larl aDDointed, who ha ve worked for rs or more in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not under^{cover of} orders of the courts or of^{tribunalsand should} fit* 'her ensu ;h at c undert,aken to fill those^{vacantsanctionedDosts} that u ire to be I uD, ,n ca where m o m lo rda rs are now emoloved. The orocess must^{beset inmotion} th, on h m this da

¶179

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

¶180

24

¶181

SN, J wP t5407 2020

¶182

(i) The emptoyee concerned should^{have workrt for 70 years or} 'more in duly sanctioned post without the benelit or protection of the interim order^{of any court or tribunal.In} "ther^{words, the} State Government or^{its instrumentalityshottlc have employed} the employee and^{continued him in servicc voluntarilyand} continuously for more^{thanten years.}

¶183

(ii) The appointment of such employee^{shoLl I not be illegal,} even if irregular. Where the^{appointments1'e not madeor} continued against sanctioned^{posts or whe 'ethe persons} appointed do^{not possessthe prescribedmininL m qualifications,} the appointments wilt be^{consideredto be illeo, l. But where the} person employed possessec) the^{prescribed c talifications and} was working against sanctioned^{posts, butt i d been selected} without undergoing the^{process of opencorr} I^{etitive selection,} such appointments are^{considered to be irrequt,r.}

¶184

( iii) Umade vi casts a dutv Don he cerne Gove n ment or instrumentalitv, to t tke sfeDs to reoularize the services of^thos irreou arlY aDDointed emD vees who had served for^more -J han ten vears without the benefit or Drotectionof^anvI !^{terim arders of} or t, na as ne-ti a sure Umadevi. di rec that such one-time measure I st be n moti n within six mon^{ths from the dat} e of its decision rende o.4.2006

¶185

The term^{'one-time measure'has to be} Lnderstood in its proper perspective. This would normally^me tn that after the decision in Umadevi, each department^{or ea,} h instrumentality shoutd undertake a one-time exercise^{and pr} )pare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad^{hoc employees who I} ave been working for more than ten^{years without the interven} ion of courts and tribunals and subject them to^{a process} ,erification as to whether they are working against^{vacant po!l} ; and possess the requisite qualification for^{the post and if ::t} ,^{regularize their} services.

¶186

At the end of six^{months from the ct. te of decision in} Umadevi, cases of several^{daily-wage/ad-ho:casualemployees} were still pending before Courts.^{Cons )quentlY, several} departments and^{instru menta lities did not c( mmence the one-} time regularization^process.On the^{ot ter hand,some} Government^{departments or instrumentali:t1s undertookthe} one-time exercise excluding several =mployees^from consideration^{either on the ground that their ( lseswere pending}

¶187

25

¶188

SN, J wP ti407 2020

¶189

in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be 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 dailywage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 1O.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 5j of Umadevi, 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.

¶190

The obiect beh,nd the said direction in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. Fir,^'st is to ensure that those^who have Dut in more then ten^{wcar<of continu} ous se^rvtce without the o tection of anv interim orde of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in^Umadeviwas rendered, are considere d for reqularization in view of their lono service. Second is to ensure that the rtmen^{ic / i.rclr. rt,rd} ntalities ,l^ n^i ,ta,-raetu Dractice of emolo no Dersons on dailv-wat e/adhoc /casu I for lono Den ds and then^Driodicallv reoularize them on the oround that^{thev have served for} more tha ten vears, therebv defeatinq the constitutional or statu orv orovtstons relatino to recrui ent and aooointment. The true effect of the direction^{isthat all} Dersons who have^{worked for m ore than ten vearsas on} 7 o.4.2006( the date f dectsron tn mad'evt lw tthout the Drotection of anv interim^{order of anv court or tribunal, in} vacant Dos ts. oossessino the reouisite aualifi^cation,are entitled to be conside^red for^{reoulaization. The fact that} ee has not k ch exe larizati' ,n slx hs of decisio Umade vi or that such^{exerctse wa} undertaken onlv tn reoard to a limited few. will not disentitl such emolo s, the rioht to^{be consideredfor reoula} zation in te sof the above direc tions in Umadevi asaon^e-time measufe.

¶191

26

¶192

SN, J \vP t5407 2020

¶193

These appeals have been pending for more \han four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appeltant l Zita panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of^.espondents of regularization within six months of the decisic t in Umadevi or thereafter.

¶194

The Division Bench of the High Court has cirected that the cases of respondents should be considered in .,ccordance with law. The only further direction that needs be g ven, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gac,i g should now undertake an exercise within six months, a g=ierat one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether tie e are any daity'if wage/casual/ad - hoc emptoyees serving the Zila ,,anchayat and so whether such employees (including the res rcndents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of tJmatl,,vi. If they fulfi them, their services have to be regutarized. If s )ch an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or otr ttting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendenct 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 fulfitt the equirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not b, regutarised. If the employees who have conpleted ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribet for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appe,t is disposed of accordingly.

¶195

In the iudo ment of the Aoe x Court inN rl tal Sinoh nd others v. State of Puniab reDorted in (2 o1:1 I 1 4 scc 65 the Supreme Court considered the case of ;rbsorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the !;tate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose rt sposal their services were made available. It held that t te mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did n,l: render the appellants 'employees' of those Bankr; since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary

¶196

21

¶197

SN, J wP 15407 2020

¶198

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 contractuat relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to cce the d n e that ther w r no sancti n t and so there was iustifica ion for the State to utilise servrcesofla roe num be f of eoD Ie like the ADD llants for es. It held h ioned osts do no il r aven" and th e a to create th m conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Refer rinq to Umadevi, it held that the aooellants before them were not arbitrarilv chose their initial aDDointmen t was not an 'irreoula r ADDOI ntment as it had been made in acco rdance with the statutor VD rocedure orescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to sa th a thev are not entitled to be d into the serv fth s anen basis as, accordinq to at, their appoantments utele^purely temDorary and not aqainst anv ioned^posts created

¶199

28

¶200

SN. J wP 15107 2020

¶201

by the State. It was held that the iudqme 1 t in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation bv the State and ats instrumentalities and neither the G< vernment of Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can c q ntinue such a r tn onsistent wi hth tr tion o function in accordance with the Constitution.

¶202

The iudoment of the Aoex Court rer[I rted in 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 between B.Srinivalusrr and others v Nellore M nicioal Corooration Reo.bv its ( om toner Nellore District, Andhra Prades and others - in oarticu la r

¶203

oaras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶204

(7) We find it difficult to acceot the reasoni 1l_a-doDted b V the Hiah Court The riqht of the aooellants to S e tk reqularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dat,ed 22.4. 19) !. The aooellant have been in service of the first resDondent nc' l 9!ly_ orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequeq t [o the issue of G till toda The respondent Municipality I eing a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). InsL te of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite fc r almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellar ts and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶205

B. In the circumstances, refusing the bett 'fit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the app(t ants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is nat justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyir,r the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' servi:'s be regularised with effect from the date of their completin r their five year continuous service as was laid down by thi:; Court in District Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singn & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.

f

29

SN, J wP r 5407 2020

In Amarkant Rai v State Bihar reDorted^(2O15) 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, which are en ure securr irregular but not illegal, and m rt ment of those erson^rt w^hn h^{ad <a} rved the St^2fa Government and their instr umentalities for more than ten vea rs". In that case, emDloveew a^s workino tor^{29vea rs.} This decrsron a DDroves earlier view exDressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.

¶210

In State of -Iarkhand v Kamal^P rasad^reo rted i n r)n L4 ) 7 SCC )a? cimil A r vrew rer.a c tt ken ]rrr tha Suore e Court and it was held as f !lows

¶211

"47.... rn view of the cateoorrcal findino^{offact on} the rele nt contentious I^ssue that^{theresoondent} emolove have continued in their servtce for^more than 7O vears continuouslv^therefore. e leoal t r la laiA down b t, urt devi ca (State of Karnat,'aka v Umadevi⁽² 006) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 scc &Sl 731 et ara 53 stt uarelv anD lies to^the rese e Divisio hof I hc rt htl e res n m sa en for the relief. the same c^annotbetn rfered with bv this Co urt."

¶212

30

¶213

Sn-. J tvP 15107 2020

¶214

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 ol 2O19 which pertains to egularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Svr amy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been rpheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 r,f 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order rf Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024an SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶215

2L. The l udqment of the Aoex Court irr HariKrishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Ot lers reported tn AIR 2O2O Su reme Court 39 69 and in o rrticular Dara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶216

"100. The High Courts exercising their jr-r sdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nc,1 only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or i-r the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bou nd to € xercise such DOl^,er where the Governm ent or a Dl J blic authorit v has f iled to exerctse or has wror r.l I lv exercised d iscre tion conferr uoon it bv statul,l or a rule or AD olicv decision of the Governme nt or ras exerci sed such d scretion mal fide or ,ln i rre leva nt consideration.

¶217

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

¶218

3l

¶219

SN, J wP r i407 2020

¶220

The Division Bench of this ourt in its Judqm ent dated 2 sed in W.A. 7 2 f 2010 and 854 o 2O12 while u holdi no the ludoment dated 08.09.2010 oassed in W.P.No.24377 ol^2OO7 and^{C.C. No.4} of 2OO8 observed as under:^-

¶221

"Further, it is manifest from the^{materialon record that the} services of the similarly^{placed persons who approached} the law Courts were regularized.^{Thea ppellant- Corporation} also issued various office^{orde rslcircula rsdated} 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007^{and latestbeing} 4.7.2009 for regularrzation of casual/con[ract^employees,It is also to be seen that Section^{25-Tof the ID Act prohibits} unfair labour practice by any employer^{or workman'As can} be seen from the factual scenario^{of the caseson hand,} engaging the respondents^{tor such a long and continuous} period of time on casual basis is nothing^{but unfair labour} practice attracting the provisions of Section^{25-T of the ID} Act. The learned Single Judge^{whilerelying on the decislons} of the Apex Court,^{rightly held that the respondents are} entitled to regularization as^{directed in the impugned} orders, as the learned^{single Judgeconsideredall the} aspects of the matter^{in detail, in the properperspective,} which, in our considered^{view does notwarrant} interference in these aPPeals."

¶222

The Division Bench of this ourt in its J udqment dated 19.O .2017 Dasse d in^{W.P. No.27217of 2OL7reDortdin} 2018^(2)ALD oe 282 a oara 16 a nd oara^{18 observedas}

¶223

u nder: -

¶224

It is trite that^{the law declared by the Supreme Court is} binding throughout^{sut the country underArticle 141 of the} Constiiution of^{India. It is noteworthythat by the time the} Judgment in^{Uma Devi'scase (supra), was rendered,the}

¶225

32

¶226

SN. J \'P t-i 107 1020

¶227

provisrons of Act 2 of lgg4 and G.O. Mi No.212, dated 22.4.7994 were in existence. The Su prer re Court, whi e

¶228

denouncing the practice of regularization anc absorption of f persons/ who entered service throu gh back 1>ors by givin 9a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for I ppointments to

¶229

ordered for one- time posts, pub I co n scio us ly

¶230

a bsorptio n/reg u Ia rization of those, who wer r woTking for a period of not less than 10 years. It has giver Jirect ions in this regard to all the State G overnments and also L r ion of India. The Supreme Court is pres umed to be conscious tf various Sta te of 7994 and executi! I orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, ng directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's SC (supra). But still, it has not mad e any exception in favour or he Slates where State enactments banni )sorption ex ist No.212, dated ,idth and the j ra), does not ssued bv the in Uma Devi's ssible for the

¶231

1 94 nd .o.

¶232

r( tularization to r _ satisfied the g oment in Uma

¶233

For the < d 27.6.2077 In OA No.1442 s set aside and d i.! ection to the f I^he services of 1^rcies of Work q reir satisfvinq !⁾ iudoment in ,J be completed this order. " pt of a copy of

¶234

T ED vtsl NB n th s ur rna Ju c^q m ent dated 2 04. o2 a ed n A 1 f2 oi t ol 2o 19 and

¶235

J-)

¶236

SN, J wP 15407 2020

¶237

W.P.No.2 057 of 2019 reoo d in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379

¶238

at Dara 45. 48 and oara 50 observed as under:-

¶239

"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 working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

¶240

o kn wn wh dent h n d the vi's case r exolained in M.L. Kes a rt 's Case^(suora) and undertaken a n^a-iirra ava rse I rtn^^tl.a lici f .1ail wa e swh r more than n 1 without the in ervention of the Courts and ribunals as on lO.4.2()06 and subiect them to a orocess verification as to e are w rkin an possess requisite qualifications for the oosts, and if so. reqularize their services.

¶241

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, L6 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the e irected to ulari on on tm petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners ,./irrr6lafa I n vatrc erf <anr o^rr.l a^ilv r-Arafias from th inili=l d a their tn^j men^f B t f h h^:l ln^{nf ha} entitled to anv monetarv relief. The said exercise shall be it tn wo 2 we ks from th da e fr coDy of the order."

¶242

A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 18.03.2O2O of the 1't respondent clearly indicates that there is a clear finding observing the contention of the respondents that the petitioners had not fulfilled the

¶243

34

¶244

SN..I \/P 15401 2020

¶245

condation of minimum 5 years of service as cr, 25,11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.O4.Lgg4 ard the same cannot be accepted in view of the law laid rlown by the various Courts in the Judgments referred to ;t rd extracted above, In so far as the other plea with regarrl to the other condition that the petitioners are not working against the sanctioned vacant posts is concerned, this Court in its order dated 2l.1-1-.20tg in Review I.A.No.!t of 2O19 in W.P.No.913O of 2O19 very ctearly observed the fact that the petitioners had been working for morr: than three decades and a further observation that the petitioners had worked against the sanctioned posts, a nd the said order dated 20.11.2019 in Review I.A.No.2 of 2O19 in W.P.No.g13O of 2O19 having attained its fini lity having not been chartenged by the respondents as , )n the date and the same having become final in favour ot petitioners herein, but, however, only with a mala fide ntention to deny the request of the petitioners for regur rrization of petationers services, the very same plea is l. ken by the respondents that petitioners did not fulfil the r: )nditaons of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 2}.O4.tgg4 in the impugned order

¶246

35

¶247

S''-, J u,P t5407 2020

¶248

dated 18.03.2020 of the l't respondent and in the subsequent memo of the 2nd respondent dated 24,O3.2O2O, hence, this Court opines that the said pleas are not tenable and are passed in a routine mechanicat manner contrary to record and hence the same are rejected in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the various Judgments referred to and extracted above.

¶249

Learned counsel aDoea ino on behalf of the Detitioner s submits that the subiect issue in the Dresent case is so uarelv covered bv the order of this Court, dated 08.o9.201O oassed tn W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 reoorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O. dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 oassed in W.P.N o.272t7 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2018 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.2 O2O passed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O 20 ( 4 ) ALD Paoe 379

¶250

Learned standino counsel aDoeaflno on behalf of the resoonde ntN .2 and3s u hm ts that the or!evanc e of th e Detitioners as Dut-torth in the Dresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the resDondents herein as on date and th erefore the DEtitioners ca n n ot comolain inaction on

¶251

36

¶252

SN. J wP t 5407 2020

¶253

the art of resoondents h erein i con! iderinq the qrievan ce of the De tto ners and hence, 1: re relief as

¶254

oraved for bv the oetitione sintheo resent Arri etiti n

¶255

cannot be oranted and no Mandamus cal be issued aoarn st the resoondents here u nder as souol'tl for and the petitio Ybedi r-ected to Dut forth tl'rr: oetitione rs qrievance as put-forth in the present Writ pe! ition bv wav ofa detailed re^p resentation to the resoon ( ents herern receiot of the said reD resentation, ther and uDon resDondents would c nsider t e same rna 1 cordance to Iaw. within a reasona ble eriod

¶256

Learned counsel aDDearrno o be: ra!f of the oeti roners does not disoute the said su bmis s ion made the learned standino counsel aooearino on ! ehalf of the r onden Nos.2 a d3.

¶257

This Cou rt ooin es that ln the Dr:se nt case, respondents failed to d ischa rqe their dutv ir examtninq the request of the Detitioners for req u lrrization of pe$ti rv who are workinqasTi me Sc le workers and further to consider therr reouel; treat he

¶258

37

¶259

SN, J wP t5407 2020

¶260

temDora services of the etitioners in the last^qrade ost of Ti c le work lar one for all ur bv orantino last orade oa with oeriodical increment revtsed from time to ti me from the date of aoooi ntment of the oetitioners, in accordance to law

¶261

This Court ooines that Detitioners are entitled for consideration of oetitioners ase for^qrant of the relief as praved for in the Dresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the ADex Court tn var ous iudqments (referred to and extracte d bove) and the view of the Division Benc h of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above

¶262

This Court opines that only to deny the relief of regularization to the petitioners, the order impugned had been passed contrary to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 79.09.2017 passed in the W.P.No.272L7 of 2017.

¶263

32. Takinq into consideration:

¶264

(a) The facts and circumstances of the case,

¶265

38

¶266

SN. J wP I J407 2020

¶267

(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners a n d the learned standing counser appearing on beharf of the respondents,

¶268

(c) The averments made in the counterr affidavit fited on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3,

¶269

(d) The order dated 26.O4.2OLI pass,3 J in favour of the petitioners in W.p.No.9130 of 2019,

¶270

(e) The order dated 20.11.2019 pass ed in Review I.A.No.2 of 2O19 in W.p.No.913O of 2Ot9 which has become final,

¶271

(f) The impugned Govt. Letter, dated : 8.O3.2O20 of the lst respondent and the consequential memo dated 24.O3.2O2O ot 2"d respondent which had been passed mechanically, without application of minct ll / taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court an I this Court in the Judgments (referred to and extracte(l above) and which is contrary to the spirit of the order rf this Court dated 26.O4.2019 in W.p. No.913O of 2019 rnd also the order dated 2O.L1 .ZO1g passed in Review I.A. Vo.2 of 2O19 in W.P.No.913O of 2O19.

¶272

39

¶273

SN. J wP 15407 2020

¶274

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

¶275

(i) (2020) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCc Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) 1 Scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) Scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶276

(h) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A. Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while upholding the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 ( referred to and extracted above),

¶277

(i) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 oJ 2O17 (referred to and extracted above),

¶278

40

¶279

SN, J wP t5407 2020

¶280

(j) The Division Bench order of thi: Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A. Nos. 1 ol 2O2O in L of 2019 and W.P. No, 23057 of 2O19 (referred to and ext:r acted above), (k) In the light of discussion and :onclusion as arived at as above from para Nos.4 to 31 r f the present orde r.

¶281

The writ petition is allowed, The or,t er impugned passed by the 1.t respondent vide Govt. Letter dated 18.03.2020 and consequential memo of the 2nd respondent dated 24.03.2O20 (referred to : nd extracted above) are set aside and the respondents ;rr e darected to reconsider the request of the petitioners for I egularization of services of the petitioners from the date o t completion of 1O years of service by the petitioners fr- rm the initiat date of the appointment, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order in accordance to law, in conformity with princit les of justice as directed by this Court in its earlier order dated 20.11.2019 passed in Review f.A. No. 2/2O1.,) in W.p. No. 193O of 2O19 which attained finality dut,/ taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court an(l thas Court in

¶282

41

¶283

SN. J wP 15407 2020

¶284

the present order and other Courts in the^judgments (referred to and extracted above), by providing an opportunity of personal hearang to the^petitioners and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shall be^no order as to costs.

¶285

The miscellaneous applications,^pending if any, shall stand

¶286

closed

¶287

//TRUE COPY//

¶288

SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

¶289

SECTION OFFICER

¶290