Md. Peer Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Specia! Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLINANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24890^{oF 2022}

¶7

MD. Peer Ahmed, S/o Basndelli, aged about^{58 years,Working} as Contingent Sweeper in PS: Tatikayala, Dharmasagar^{Mandal, Warangal} Urban District, TS.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Principal Secretary,Panchayathraj} Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary,Finance& Planning} Department, Telangana Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector^& Chairman^{of Selection Committee & MinimumWages} Committee, Warangal Urban^District.

¶13

fhe Zilla Praja Parishad, Warangal^{Urban District, Rep. by its ChiefExecutive} Officer.

¶14

The Mandal Parishad Development^{Officer, DharmasagarMandal,Warangal} Urban District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue an order or direction more^particularly one in the^{nature of Writ of} Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in^{not treating the services of} petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 30 long^{yearson full} time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as^{per appointment} order dated 24-03-1992, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and^{violationof Article} 14, 16,21 ,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying^{legitimate living} wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and^{15 of Minimum Wages}

¶17

Act, 1948 and^provisions of Equal^{Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from} time to time, to^pay living wages^{to petitioner and prays to directthe Respondents} herein to treat the services of the^{petitioner as regular one in last grade post from} the date of initial appointment of^{24-03-1992by applying the decisionand} principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of^{PremSingh Vs State of} U.P. (2019 (1)SCC 516) and Division^{Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No.} 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases^{dated 02-05-2018(2020 (4) ALD379 TS (DB)} followed by decision of the Hon'ble^{High Court of A.P. in W.A.No. 483 of 2021} dated 05-08-2021 based on^principle laid^{by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.} No. 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated^{23-03-2018to reckon contingent services of} petitioner for computation of qualifying service to^grant of^{pension,gratuity and} other retirement benefits by^{releasing consequential monetary benefits in the last} grade post including periodical increments, as revised from^{time to time with} 1OO% compensation as^{per principle} laid by^{Apex Court in the case of Unionof} lndia Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416^{- 3445 of 2010 & Batch Casesdated19-} OZ-2O19 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32), by^{applying the aforesaid principles and} decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and^{Division Benches underArticle141 of} our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in^{the case of petitioner.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be pleased to} direct the respondents to continue the^{petitionerin service by paying on par with} regularly engaged last^grade employees along^{with periodical incrementsas} revised from time to time as^per the orders^{granted in l.A. No. 1 of 2018 in WP} No. 38763 of 2018 dated 30-10-2018 in similarly situated^{case forthwith.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{CH. GANESH}

¶21

Gounset for the Respondent^{No.1 to 3 : AGP FOR SERVICES'I}

¶22

Counsel for the^{RespondentsNo.4 &5: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC} FOR TG ZPP MPP GPPS

¶23

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶24

3

¶25

SN, J wp_24890_2022

¶26

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.2489O OF 2O22

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, tearned Standing Counset for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶30

2

¶31

as under:

¶32

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action. of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 30 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment order dated 24-03-Lgg2, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, L6, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in

¶33

4

¶34

SN, J wp]4890_2022

¶35

denying legitimate^{living wages topetitioner by not} implementing Section^{13 and 15 of MinimumWagesAct,} Lg4B and^{provisions of Equal RemunerationAct, 1976 and} Govt. Orders from^{time to time, to pay living wagesto} petitioner and prays to direct^{the Respondentsherein to} treat the services of^{the petitioneras regular one in last} grade post from the date of^{initial appointment of 24-03-} 1gg2 by applying the^{decision and principlelaid by the} Honble Apex court^{in the case of Prem singh Vs State of} u.p. (2019^{(1) SCC516) and DivisionBench of this Hon'ble} court in wP No. 33936^{0f 2011 and Batch cases dated 02-} 05-2018^{(2020(4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followedby decisionof} the Honble^{High court of A.P. in w.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated} 05-08-2021 based^{on principle laid by the HonbleSupreme} Court in C.A. No.^{t254 of 2018 Apex Court,dated 23-03-} 2018 to reckon contingent^{services ofpetitionerfor} computation of^{qualifying service to grant of pension,} gratuity and other retirement^{benefits byreleasing} consequential monetary^{benefits in the last gradepost} including periodical increments,^{as revised from time to time} with 100o/o compensation^{as per principlelaid by Apex Court} in the case of Union^{of India vs. Avtar chand in c.A.No.} 3416-3445 0f^{2010 and Batch cases dated t9-o2-20L9} (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32)^{by applying the aforesaid principles} and decisions of^{the Hon',bleApex court and Division} Benches under^{Article l41- of our constitutionby this} Hon'ble Court^{in the case of petitioner and pass""''}

¶36

5

¶37

SN, J wp_24890 2022

¶38

oetitioner olacing reliance on the avqrments made in the affidavit filed in supoort of the present writ petition oertainino in particular, to the services rendered bv decade contends that the petitioner is entitled for the

¶39

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

¶40

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

¶41

oetitioner submits that the subiect issue in the oresent

¶42

2O10, dated 1O.O6.2013 and also order, dated 19.O9.2O17

SN, J wp,24890-2022

6

reasonable Period.

6

No.4

I
/ {' iI
'I ;
__i

7

SN, J wp_24890_2022

The Aoex Court in the^judoment reoorted in^(2O20) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 held as under:

¶53

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 3O40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, 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 continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension."

¶54

The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Wage Emolovees Association V5. State of Karnataka reoorted in 1990(21 SCC Paqe 396 laid^principle that the State should not keeo a oerson in temporary or

!t l

8

SN, J wp_24890_2022

persons as reqular one.

¶59

Para No.53^{of the of the iudoment of the ADex Court} in the State of^{Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi'dated} 10. .2006 Dorted i (2006) 4 SCC is extr d

¶60

hereunder:-

¶61

tl made nd the emDl have contin for vears or re but without the

f (

9

SN, J wp_24890 2022

The^judqment of the Apex Court dated 2O.12.2O24, reported in 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jagoo Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant paraoraph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder:

¶66

"12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in'nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any .other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶67

The claim by the respondents that these were not reqular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioninq of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

<br>

I

i ,l ai ll

10

SN, J wp_24890_2022

The landmark^judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a^pertinent example from the^private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were,ⁱⁿ fact, common-law employees and 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 hiohliqhts the^judiciarv's role in rectifyinq such misclassifications and ensurinq that workers receive fair treatment.

¶74

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^todeny legitimate claims of long serving^{employees.This} judgment aimed to distinguish between^"illegal" and "irregular" aPPointments. It cateqoricallv held that^{employees in} irrequtar aopointments. who^{were enqaoed in} duly sanctioned oosts^{and had served} continuouslv for^{more than ten vears should} be sidered reoulari tion as a onetime measure.^{However,the laudableintent of} the^{judgmentisbeing subverted when institutions} rely on its dicta^{to indiscriminatelY reject the} claims of emPloYees, even in cases^{where their}

/^I

ll

SN, J wp_24890_2022

appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the^judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the^judoment's spirit and^purpose, effectively weaoonizinq it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶79

in light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for^government departments to lead by example in^providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶80

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:

¶81

i. The termination orders dated 27 .tO.2O1B are quashed;

¶82

12

¶83

SN, J wp_24890 _2022

¶84

ii. The aopellants shall be taken services reqularised forthwith. However, the aopellants shall not be entitled to anv oecuniarv benefits/back waqes for thb period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said oeriod and the same would be coun for their nostretiral benefits."

¶85

¶86

It ,,

¶87

Dara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶88

"15. It is manifest that the Aopellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several vears, sometimes spannino more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Emolover's failure furnish such reeordsdesoite directions to do so-allows an adverse

I⁾

l3

SN, J wp_24890]022

,l I

aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:

¶94

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, dS exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse^'of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in govern mental operations.

¶95

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 OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

o

f,

t4

SN, J wp_24890_2022

lrli t,

emplovees are entitled to, desoite oerforminq identical tasks.

¶102

. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, 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 equally significant.

¶103

. 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.

¶104

. 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."

¶105

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

¶106

l5

¶107

SN, J wp-24890]022

¶108

measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

¶109

t7. 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 were enqaoed in essential,^perennial duties, these workers cannot be of municipal budqet and comoliance with riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in

I

r6

SN, J wp*24890_2022

meaninoful back waqes, is herebv set aside with the followino directions:

¶114

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, t947, 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.

¶115

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire^period of absence^(from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be

¶116

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.

N

t7

SN, J wp]4890_2022

statutorv and equitable^norms'

¶121

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."

¶122

¶123

"54 "The Futt Bench of the High^{Court,while adiudicating} upon the above controversy^{had concluded,that temporary} eimptoyees were not^{entitled to the minimumof the regularpay-} scale, merely for the^{reason, that the activities carried on by} daity-wagers and regular^{employeeswere similar. The full bench} however, made two exceptions.^{Temporaryemployees, who fell} in either of the two^{exceptions,were held entitled to wages at} the minimum of^{the pay-scale drawn by regularemployees.The} exceptions recorded^{by the fult bench of the High Court in the} impugned^judgment are^{extractedhereunder:-}

¶124

"(1) A daily wageL ad^{hoc or contractual appointee} a'giinst the regular sanctioned^{posts, if app,ointed after} uhdergoing a selection^{processbased uponfairnessand} equality of opportunity to all^{other eligibte candidates,} shatt be entitled to minimum of^the regular^{pay scale from} the date of engagement.

¶125

appointees are not aopointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed

r

SN. J wp_24890 2022

l8

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two m'onths of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daity wager, ad hoc or contractuar emproyee shail beZnililed to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,,

¶130

¶131

under:

¶132

Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reenqagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the state or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This court furthir held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daity-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

r

r9

SN, J wp 24890_2022

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 :

¶137

appointments) as explained .in^'5.V. NarayanapPa f7967 (7) SCR 7281. R.N. Naniundappa t7972⁽⁷⁾ SCC 4O9l and B.N. Nagaraian 17979^{(4) SCC 5O7l} and referred to in para 75 above- of duly^qualified oersons in duly sanctioned vacant Posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. such employees may have to be considered^on merits in the liaht of the princioles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudgment. In that context, the Union^of a one-time measure. the services of such irregularlv 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 employees or daily wagers are being within six months from this date. ..,.

¶138

"5. ft is evident from the above that there^is an^exception to the general^principles against^{'regularization' enunciated in} lJmadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled^:

¶139

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70^years or 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 have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶140

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal; even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or

¶141

20

¶142

SN, J wp_24890_2022

¶143

continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be iilegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected withottt undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

¶144

courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. llmadevidirected that such one-time measure must be set ii motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OOG),

¶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 alt c_asual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intenrention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and posse.ss fhe 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 circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, witl 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 shourd consider all daitywage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of

':f;

2t

SN, J wp_24890_2022

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} lJmadevi, but did not consider the cases of some^employeeswho were entitled to the benefit of^para 53 of Umadevi,^{the employer} concerned should consider their^{casesalso, as a continuation of} the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be^concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to^{be considered} in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

¶151

The obiect behind the said direction in^para 53^of llmadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those^who have put in more than ten^years of continuous^service tribunals. before the date of decision in Umadevi^was their lona service, Second is to ensure that^the departments^{'tstrumentalities} do not^{perpetuatethe} practice of emploving persons on daily-wage'adhoclcasual for long periods and then Periodically or statutorv provisions relating to recruitment^and appointment, The true effect of the direction is^{that all} persons who have worked for more than ten^years as on 7O.4.20O6 (the date of decision in llmadevi) without^the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal- in vacant posts. possessing the requisite^{qualification,are} entitled to be considered for regularization.^{The fact that} the employer has not undertaken such exercise^of regularization within six months of the decisionⁱⁿ llmadevi or that such exercise was undertaken^{only in} reaard to a limited few. will not disentitle^such employees. the rioht to be considered for^{regularization} in terms of the above directions in llmadevi^as a^one-time measure,

¶152

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

¶153

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with

\

tifil .;,I I j t.

:i :l' ,]'!l

22

SN, J \'p-.24890_2022

¶159

law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of umadevi, /s that the Zita panchayat, Gadag shoutd now undertake an exercise within six montht, u g"iural one- time regularization exercise, to find out whethter tltere are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila panchayai and'if so whether such employees (includiig lhe respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para sj of llmadevi. If they futfilt them, their seruices have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been unde,rtaken by ignoring or omitting 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 to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of umadevi, their seruices need not be iegutarised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess 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.

¶160

¶161

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. rt 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. rt held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter

I)

23

SN, J wp_24890_2022

exclusively within the authority of the^{State, but if the} State did not choose to create a cadre^{but chose to make} appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It atso^{refused to}

¶166

ft tt conscious choice on the basis of some rational^assessment

¶167

by the State. It was held that the judoment in Umadevi

¶168

24

¶169

SN, J wp-24890_2022

¶170

accordance with the Constitution.

¶171

Nellore Municioal Corooration Reo.by its Commissioner,

¶172

paras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶173

(7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to se€k regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.7994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of 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 almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶174

In the circumstanceq refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous seruice as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480,

¶175

SCC 265. the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective

¶176

r (

¶177

-^. ' ir .in,!i!::i, in,'ii$iEi4*Fi

¶178

25

¶179

SN, J wp_24890_2022

¶180

behind the exception carved out in this case^was to^permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to bnsure securitv of Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten M.L.Kesari extracted above.

¶181

L7.

¶182

"47.... In view of the categorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent employees this Court in llmadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2OOG) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at oara 53 squarely applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the respondent

¶183

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertains to regutarization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha

¶184

26

¶185

SN, J wp_24890_2022

¶186

Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ol 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024.

¶187

¶188

Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶189

"100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus,

¶190

consideration.

¶191

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

zfJ.

(^r

27

SN, J wp_24890_2022

observed as under:-

"Further, it is manifest from the material on^{record that the} services of the similarly^{placed persons who approached the law} Courts were regularized. The^{appellant-Corporationalso issued} various office orders/circulars dated^{20.t2.1989, 11.09.t992,} 06.10.2007 and latest being^{4.7 .2009 for regularizationof} casual/contract employees, It^{is also to be seen that Section25-} T of the ID Act^prohibits unfair^{labourpractice by any employer} or workman. As can be seen^{from the factual scenario of the} cases on hand, engaging the^{respondentsfor such a long and} continuous period of time on^{casual basisis nothingbut unfair} labour practice attracting the^{provisionsof Section 25-T of the} ID Act. The learned Single Judge while^{relying on the decisions} of the Apex Court, rightly held that^{the respondents are entitled} to regularization as directed in^{the impugned orders,as the} learned single Judge considered^{all the aspectsof the matter in} detail, in the proper^{perspective,which, in our consideredview} does not warrant interference^{in these appeals."}

¶198

2L.

¶199

dated 1 -Oq-2(J17 oassed in W-P-No.272L7 of 2fJ17

¶200

observed as under:-

¶201

"16. It is trite that the^law declared^{by the Supreme Courtis} binding throughout the^{country underArticle l4t of the} Constitution of India. It^{is noteworthy that by the time the} judgment in llma Devi's case (supra), was^rendered,the provisions of Act 2 of t994 and G.O.^{Ms. No.212, dated} 22.4.L994, were in^{existence.The Supreme Court, while} denouncing the^practice of^{regularization and absorptionof 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.

I

28

SN, J ''p_24890_2022

The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 a nd executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 2Z.4.Lgg4 while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in tlma Devi's case (supra ). But still, it has not m ade any exception in favour of the States where State enactm ents banning regul arization/absorption exist.

¶206

Devf's case (suora).

¶207

For the aforeme ntioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.t442 of 20L4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and

¶208

this order."

¶209

¶210

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) year-s of service by now. T!"y h.ave 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.

r (

29

SN, J wp_24890_2022

explained in M.L. Kesari's case^(supra) and undertaken^a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage emplovees who had worked for more than ten (1O)^years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 1O.4.2OO6 and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working aoainst vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services.

¶215

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the lst respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 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 1O years of service on daily wages from the initial dates of their appointment. But, thev shall not be entitled to any monetary reliei. The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

¶216

This Court ooines that in the Dresent case, the respondents failed to discharqe their dutv in examininq

¶217

petitioner's services, who is workinq as full time sweeper

accordance to law.

30

SN, J wp_24890_2022

This Court ooines that oetitioner is entitled for

¶222

and extracted above.

¶223

Takino into consideration:-

¶224

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counSel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos,4 & S.

¶225

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

¶226

ix2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scc Pase 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit(SC) t2o9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(e) scC 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797

¶227

i I

¶228

, . 11..... -..,..-;:. . ..:.. .-,i.:'. ;;,: ... :'

¶229

3l

¶230

SN, J wp_24890_2022

¶231

(ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶232

d) The Division Bench order of^{thisCourt dated} 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of^{2O1O and 854 of} 2OL2 while uploading the Judgment^{datedO8.O9.2010} passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of^2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶233

e) The Division Bench order of^this .^{Court dated} 19.09.2017 passed in w.P.No.272t7 ol^{2OL7 (referred to} and extracted above),

¶234

f) The Division Bench order of this^{court dated} 2t.o4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of^{2O2O in 1 of 2o19 and} W.P.No.23057 of^{2O19 (referredto and extracted above).}

¶235

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

\

32

SN, J wp_24890_2022

f (

33

SN, J wp_24890_2022

Judoment of this Court dated^{21.O4.2O2O passed in} LA.Nos.1 of 2O20 in 1of 2O19^{in W.P.No.23O57of 2019} reoorted i.n 2O20(4)ALD oage 379 which^had attained finality, within a^period of four⁽⁰⁴⁾ weeks from the^date of receiot of a copy of this order, duly^takinginto consideration the observations and the^{law laid down bv} the Aoex Court in the various^{iudoments(referredto and} extracted above), and in oarticular'^{para No.53 of the} iudoment of the Aoex Court in the^{case of State of} Karnataka v. Uma Devf and duly communlcate^the ctecision to the Oetitioner. However, there^{shall be no}

¶243

order as to costs.

¶244

Miscellaneous Petitions, if doy, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stgnd clgs,ed.^{r I} 11, T3;,I!;,T#,f;ET'EFRRX 6 //TRUE^COPY/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶245

\

¶246

One Fair^{Copy to the Hon'ble MBS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA} (F;; ti;;^{LiaYstriPs Kind Perusal)}

¶247

To,

¶248

i. illt$Ti3t""r"t"rv,^{Union of rndia Ministryof Law, Justice and companv} . ff:'S;I:Ui:fllunsun'^{Advocates Association Library' Hish court}

¶249

^^{il:t**,H,H:[:;,} HYderabad,^{Telangana'panchayathraiDepartment, rerangana secretariat'}

¶250

e' 5ThePrincipalsecretary,FinanceandPlanningDepartment,Telangana secreiiriat,^HYderabad'

¶251

6 . rhe . rhe rhe^{Di s!! ct c;lE::,t s!! ct c;lE::,t ct c;lE::,t c;lE::,t} T3 fr:? llTtxl^{g,:,";"f,,"n com m ittee a nd tt't ittee a nd tt't a nd tt't nd tt't tt'ti}

¶252

6 . rhe . rhe rhe^{Di s!! ct c;lE::,t s!! ct c;lE::,t ct c;lE::,t c;lE::,t} T3 fr:? llTtxl^{g,:,";"f,,"n com m ittee a nd tt't ittee a nd tt't a nd tt't nd tt't tt'ti} m wages comm lmu Marangal^{Urban District''} :

¶253