Allowed

K. Chinna Kistaiah v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC5 Aug 2025WP/25617/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A temporary full-time sweeper serving since 1993 sought regularization and last-grade pay with increments. The court, relying on Umadevi's one-time measure principle, M.L. Kesari, Prem Singh, Jaggo Anita and Division Bench precedents, allowed the petition and directed the respondents to examine his claim for regularization and consequential benefits in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit detailed representation within four weeks; respondents to examine and decide regularization claim with consequential benefits in accordance with law after hearing, per Umadevi par

K. Chinna Kistaiah Vs The State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[32s21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION _l{O: 25017 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Chinna Kistaiah, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 55 years, Working in temporary post of Sweeper on full time, MPUPS Ramreddypalli, Marriguda frilandal, Nalgonda District

¶10

...pETr*oNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana , Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Departmenl, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Govt. of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

J. The District Collector (Panchayat), and Chairman of fvlinimum Wages Committee and District Selection Committee, Nalgonda District.

¶15

The Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.

¶16

The tvlandal Development Officer, lvlandal Praja Parishad, lvlarriguda Mandal, Nalgonda District'

¶17

...RES'.NDENTS

¶18

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 an order or directiorr more particularly one in the nature of Writ of N/landamus to direct the respondenls to treat the services of the^petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 22-11-1993 nor regularizing his services even^{on completionof 28 long years} service by not extending the last^{grade pay benefits with periodicalincrements} from time to time with effect from 22-11-1993^{to tilt date fromtime to time with} arrears as per GO tMs. No.687 dated 03-10-1977^{to till date is highly unjustand} unfair as per Article 14, 16, 21, 39^(d), 43 and^{300 (A) of Constitution of lndia by} subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement due^{to his helpless conditionsof} poverty, poor sociat, economical and^political background by taking it^as

¶19

advantage by the respondents in continuing her on piftance wages of Rs. 40001 p.m. and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioner in the last grade post of sweeper as regular one for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date of appointmenL of the petitioner for working 28 long years without any service progress with 100 % compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in C.A. No. 3416 - 3445 ot 2010 dated 19-022019 in the case ol Uninn of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of UP and Batch cases (reported in 2019 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37), in the case of Netram Sahu Vs_ State of Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-20-lB, followed by DB Orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in WP No. 26788 of 20'1 7 dated 1O-O8-2O17 (DB) with cost by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Hon'bte Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filcd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herern to treat the services of the petitioner provided on compassionate grounds vide Proc. No. C/408/93/Marrriguda daled 22-11-1993 by sth respondent tn temporary post of sweeper as per GO lvls. No. 687 dated 03-10-1977 as regular one from the date of appointment i.e. from 22-11-1993 in the last grade post forthwith by paying last grade time scale benefits to the petitioner with periodical increments revised from time to time

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: AGP FOR SERVICES t

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR ZPP AND MPP

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

SN,J wp:256t7 022

¶27

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶28

WRIT PETITION o-256L7 OF 2(J22

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP & MPP appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶31

2. The oetitioner aooroache the Court seekin o Draver

¶32

as under:

¶33

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 22-11-1993 nor regularizing his services even on completion of 28 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with eFfect from 22-11-1993 to till date from time to time with arrears as per GO Ms.No. 687 dated 03-10-1977 to till date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article 14, t6,21,39 (d) 43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of India by subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helpless conditions of poverty, poor social, economical and^political background by taking it as advantage by the

¶34

¶35

SN.J wp 25611,2022

¶36

respondents in continuing her on pittance wages of Rs.4000/- p.m. and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporarv services of oetitioner in the last grade post oF sweeper as regular one for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 28 long years without any service progress with 100^o/o compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 34L6-3445 of 2010 dated 19-O2-20L9 in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of^prem Singh Vs. State of UP and Batch cases (reported in 2019 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37), in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018 dated 23-03-2018, followed by DB Orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in Wp No. 26788 of 2017 dated 10-08-2017 (DB) with cost by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass....."

¶37

3 L arned cOUnsel a oDea rtnd on behalf of the ra al itioner ct reli n n the av r de in th fidavit fi dinsu of the etitio e tn IN lar to rv ces rende b Detitioner with the resoondents herein for more than a decade contends that the Detitio ner is entitled for the elief as ed for in the ntw

¶38

P ERUSED TH E RECORD:-

¶39

DISCUSSI ON AND CONCLU SION:-

¶40

¶41

SN,J wP_25617 ]022

¶42

Learned counsel aoDearinq on behalf of the etiti n submi tth n the res case ls souarelv covered bv eorder ot this Court, dated o8.O9.2 o 1O oassed in w.p,N o.24377 of 2Oo7r oorted in 2011(1) ALD Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No. 782 of 2O1O. dated 10.O6.2O13 and also order, dated 19.o9.20L7 oassed in W.P. No.27217 of 2Ol7 reDorted in 2018 (2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order dated 21.O4.2 O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O 19 re DO ed in 2O2 o(4 ) ALD Paoe 379.

¶43

Lear ed standino counsel aDDearino on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the etiti ras u f the n Wri P ition had no been addressed to the resDo dents herern as o n date and therefore the oetitroner can ot comDl ain inaction on the oart of resoondents herein in considerino the o rieva nce of the oetitioner and hence the relief as oraved for bv the etition r the wat tion n tbe ra nte and no Mandamus can be s ued aoainst the resoondents hereunder as souoht foran dt hc nat f oner ma vhe d irected ODU t-forth the netitaon er's o rleVance as Dutforth in the orese nt WritP tition bv wa VO t detailed

¶44

¶45

SN,J wp-256t7 2022

¶46

e re tion he n nandu o recer Dt of the said re Dresentation the resDOndents would consider the same tn , ccordance to law within a

¶47

rea son a b!e oeriod.

¶48

Learned counsel aooeaflno on behalf of the oetit oner oes no s ute the s ubmission ma e learn sta nd i n o counsel aooearrn o on behalf of the resoondent

¶49

No.4

¶50

The A Dex Court in the I ud ment re DOrted in⁽²⁰²⁰⁾ 1 scc⁽ L&S) in Prem Sin o h v State of Uttar Pradesh and othe rs at Dara 36 held as under:

¶51

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 3040 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 Iaid 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 ti-eated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference

¶52

¶53

SN,J wp 25617 2022

¶54

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 reqular establishment and the services rendered bv them riqht from the dav thev entered the work-charoedesta blishment shall be counted as oual fvtno servrce for DurDose of oension."

¶55

8 The A Dex Cou rt ln the se of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dail v Wa oeEm Dlovees Association Vs. Stateof Karnataka reoorted in 199O( ) SCC Paqe 396 laid Drinciole that the State should not keeD a Derson in temoorarv or adhoc service for lonq Deraod and have to treat such oersons as reqular one,

¶56

Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the Aoex Court n the State of Karn ataka and others Vs- Umadevi- dated 10.04.2006 reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:-

¶57

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular aDDointments^(not illeoal appointments) as explained an S.V. Naravanappa 11967 (1) SCR 128L R.N. Naniundaooa 11972⁽¹⁾ caa 4no'l d B.N. Na artt an I L979 4^{</sup> scc 5ⁿ 7^I and refered to in DA f a 15 above, of dulv oualified narcon c tn rlrrlw sa nctioned a^aa n^fnar sts mi d hth 2 v been made and the emnlovees have continued to ork for n out h i nterven tion of ord ersof the courts or of tribunals. The^question of reqularization of the services of such}

¶58

¶59

SN,J wp 25617 2022

¶60

m lo a hav n the lioht of the orincioles settled bv th Court in the cases a bove referred to and in the lioht of this iudqment. In that context, the Un on of India, the State Govern ments and their instrumentalities shou ld take ste D s to reo u la rize as a one-time mea su re the services of such irreoularlv a oointed, who have worked for ten vears or mor in dulv sa nctioned oosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are und ertaken to fill those vaca nt sanctioned Dosts that reo utre be filled uo. ln cases where temDorarv em D lovees or dailv waoers are beino now emoloved The Drocess must be set in motion within six mont hsfrom this date. ....

¶61

The I ud ment of the A Dex Court dated 20.t2.2024, reDorted in 2O24 LawSuit(sc) 1209 in laooo Anita and others v Union of India and others. and the relevant DaraoraDh Nos.12. 13 24 26,27 and 28 are extracted

¶62

hereu nder:

¶63

"12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, 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.

¶64

¶65

SN,J wpJ256t7 ]022

¶66

The claim bv the resDondents that these were not reqular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aooellants was oerennial and fundamental to h f n of the offi 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.

¶67

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 certaln 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 hiqhliqhts the iudiciary's role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and ensurino that workers receive fair treatment.

¶68

¶69

SN,J wp 25611 2022

¶70

While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to cuftail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and ''irregular" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that emplovees in irreqular aDoointments, who were enqaqed in dulv sanctioned Dosts and had served continuously for more than ten vears should be considered for reqularization as a onetime measure. However, the laudable intent of the^judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural Formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists tor temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoplication distorts the iudqment's spirit and Durpose, effectivelv weaponizinq it aqainst employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶71

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,

¶72

¶73

SN,J w:256t7²⁰²²

¶74

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.

¶75

28 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:

¶76

i. The termination orders dated 27 . lO.2Ol8 are quashed ;

¶77

ll. he la nts lbe k back on du forthwith and their servlces q u !a rised forthwith. However, the aooellan shall n tbe entitl ed to anv Decu rarv benefits/back waoes for the oeriod the have not worked for but w uld bee ntitled to conti nuitv of servrces for the said oeriod and the same wouldbec ounted f'or their stretiral bene ts."

¶78

The Judo ment of the Aoex urt da 31.ot.202s reDorted in 20 25 INSC144in" SHRTPAL AND ANOTH ER v. NAG R NIGAM, GHAZIABAD". in oarticular. the releva nt para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶79

"15. It is manifest that the Aooel lant Wor men continuouslv rendered their ervrces over se era! so lmes nnan ore h a

¶80

¶81

SN,.I $,p 25617 2022

¶82

Even if certa rn mu ster rolls w^e re otDrod uced in full, the E It over^,s failure to tU rnlsh such re ordsdes Dite di recti^{ns trl} do qat-allowGA na dvF rse inferen ce un der we l-establis^hed bo u r i u risorud ence. ndian labour law stronolv disfa^vors ual dailv-waoe or contractual^{enoaoemen tsln} oerI) circums tances where th work ls Dermanent tn nature. Morallv and leoallv. worke^rswhofulfil onootn o munr cioal r^eo ulr^emen s ear after vear ca n not be dismis d summarilv as disoe nsable, pa rticu la rlvinth e absence of a oenui ne contractor aqreement, At this^juncture, it would be^{appropriateto} recall the broader critique of indefinite^"temporary" employment^practices as done by a^{recent judgement oi} this court in Jaggo v. Union of India^{in the following} paragraphs:

¶83

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

¶84

¶85

SN,J w_2561'1-022

¶86

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 maniiest in several ways:

¶87

a e "Tem rar La S:E lo a d w r hat i ess tial curr and tnteo ral to the fun !ontn of an institution reo lled s m or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of reoula r emolov ees. Such mlsclass ification deorlves worke of the nt urit and enefi th re ul e are titled des ite rmrn identical tasks.

¶88

. Arbitra ry Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notlce, 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 counterpa rts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

¶89

. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasing ly resort to outsourcing roles performed by te-mporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This prictice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates

¶90

¶91

SN,J \tt, -2561i 2022

¶92

a deliberate effort^{to bypass the obligation to offer} regular emPloYment.

¶93

. Denial of Basic Rights and^{Benefits: Temporary} "rnpioy""t such as^{pension, provident are often denied fundamental fund, health insurance'benefits} and^paid leave,^{even when their tenurespans} decades. This^{lack of social security subjectsthem} and their^{familiesto undue hardship,especiallyin} cases of illness,^{retirement, orunforeseen} circumstances.^"

¶94

The High^{Court did acknowledgethe Employer's} inability to^{justifytheseabrupt terminations'Consequently'} it ordered re-engagement^{on dailywages with some} measure of^{parity in minimum pay' Regrettably,this only} perpetuated precariousness:^{the Appellant Workmenwere} left in a marginally^{improvedyet 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 meaningfulback wages} commensurate^{with the degree of statutoryviolation} evident on^record.

¶95

L7. In light of these^{considerations,the Employer's} discontinuation of^{the Appellant Workmen standsin} violation of the^{mostbasic labour law principles' Once it is} established that^{their services were terminatedwithout} adhering to^{Sections 6E and 6N of the U P' Industrial} Disputes Act, 1947,^{and thatthevwe} enoaqedⁱⁿ senti r nnl thes wor ers ann tbe releqated to DCTD etua^I uncertai ntv.^{Whileconcern s} of muni t n co lia ce with

¶96

¶97

SN,J wp 256t7 _2022

¶98

r m rul m t id ra ron ch ncern n a olv h er at o ation n lem ts. Ind cr icl t n nn rum th iti r rkm w oh s ed ti ousl o ul ol or ne d eri

¶99

1 h m ne rd of eH h u oth h conf e A llan or n of en e n ith t tin I f ck a reb et ad ath h followi odi ctio s:

¶100

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, 7947, 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. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts aktn to the duties they previous ly performed) withi n four weeks from the date of this judgment. Th r Ire n fa nc rom e of tn on tit ual IN em t ll be or n ut of vt an all n ue ef s ha enl ti I r ns an

¶101

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entifled to 50olo of the back'wages from the date of their discontinuation until their

¶102

¶103

Sr-.J wp_2561? 2022

¶104

actual reinstatement.^{The Respondent Employershall} clear the aforesaid^{dues within threemonthsfrom} thc date of their^{reinstatement.}

¶105

IV The Res ent Em e ts tre t tnl iate fair nd rans ce fo re u la rizi n^qth e^{AoDellant Workmen wathrn slx} months fr mt da of rns n consa nn hef th th h or ren munlcl dut a t er nen p ts. In assessinq re^qulariz ation,^the Em er hall not m c nal r procedural criteria retroactivelv if such re urrem ents were nev r aD olied to the AP ella nt Work^menorto sim ila rlv situa ted re ular m sr he s To ee en that sa nct^{ionedvacancies for such duties exist} or are reouired^the esDo dent^{EmDIover shall} x e e all neces mt tr ve roce es to en su re these lonotrme emol^{oveesarc not} indefi el taa on at a co ra o stat r a e bl r

¶106

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."}

¶107

The A oex Court^{ina iudomentreDorted in(2017) 1} rem Court Case 1 tn te Pun a do^h r v Ja ln h ndo h at r s n s b- ra 1 2 of th said u men ob da n r

¶108

"54 "The Full Bench of^{the High Court, while adjudicating} uDon the above^{controversyhad concluded, that temporary} Zipbys"t were^{not entitled to the minimumof the regular pay-} icile,'*erety for^{the reason,that the activities carried on by} iily'-*ug"r' und^{regular employees were similar'The full bench}

¶109

¶110

SN,J wp]56t'|]022

¶111

however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Couft in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶112

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

¶113

(2) But if dailv waoe ad hoc or contractual aooointees are not aDDointed aoainst reoular sanctioned Dosts and their services are availed continuouslv, with notional breaks, bv the state Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lonq^period i.e. for 70 vears, such dailv waqers, ad hoc or contractual aDDointees shall be entit,led to minimum of the reoular Dav scale without anv allowances on the assumotion that work at rennial vailable and havin worked such lono oeriod of time, an eouitable riqht is created in such cateoorv of DE rsons. Their c m for reoularization. if anv. m have to be conside red seDaratelv in terms of leoallv oermissible scheme.

¶114

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

¶115

The iudqment of the Aoex Court reported in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State f Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others. in Da icula r DA ras4to9reads as u nder:

¶116

The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2O06^(reoorted in 2O06 SCC 1 In that case. a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made

¶117

¶118

SN,J \vp 25617 _2022

¶119

without following the due process or the rules retating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their service permanenL 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 carefut in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentatities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a 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 adherence of Articles 14 and 76 of the Constitution, This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

¶120

,,53 One asDect n eeds to be cleri There mav he cases lvhere irreoular DDointments⁽ⁿ illeqa i ADD ointments) as eXDlained in S.V. Naravana ooa 67 7 s 2A .N. 79 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Nasaraian [7979G)S soTl and referred to in oara 75 above. of dulv dualified ersons i I sanction ai vqaaa* aac E mi. een mad the em ve con work for ten veais or more but wit out the interv ention of orders of the courB or of tribunals. e uesti ulariz, the such emplovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orrnct ,es sett ed bv this Court n the cases bovereferred to and in t.^'he lisht of this iudoment. In t'hat context- the Union of Indi,a. the Sta te Governmen fs an their tn strumenta lit ies should take s to requlallze as a one-ti e measure, the rvices of such ularlv a DDOtn who have wor, for ten vears or more tn dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals an should further ensure that oular rectuitm nfs are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that reouire to be filled uo. i.n cases where a em lo r wa rs are tn

¶121

¶122

SN,J wp-256t7 ]022

¶123

now emDloved, The o must be set in motion within six months from this da te.

¶124

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

¶125

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of 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.

¶126

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illega!, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

¶127

(iii) Umad.evi casts a dutv uDon e concerned Government ot instrumenteIItv. to take steDs to reoularize the services of those iffeoularlv aooointed emolovees who had se for more than ten vears without the benefito f Dro tect,Ionof anv tn fl m orders of courts or tribuna ls. as a one-time measure. U^madevi- directed that such one-time measure m 5t be set^,n motion within six months from the date f its decision rendered on 7 4

¶128

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

¶129

¶130

SN,J \yp 2561'1 2022

¶131

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 undeftook 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 Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all dailywage/ad hoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 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 shcu!d ccnsider their cases also, as a ccntinuatian 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.

¶132

The obiect behind the said direction in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who ut in mo^ra fhan *6n v6,rc of co ithout th n interim tribunals. before the date of decision in Umadevi wa.s rendere are considered for reoularization in view of their lon o rvice. Second ,s to ensure that the deDa rtments / ,n strumentalities do not rDetuate the Dractice of emolovino Dersons on dailv-waoe/adhoc / casual for lono oeriods and then oeriodicallv reoularize the on the oround that thev have served for more than ten vears, therebv defeatino the constitutional or st,atutorv Drovisions relatino to tecruitment and ADDointm en The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 70.4. 2006 the date of decision in Umadevi) without the tection of an tn rt order f co osfs se stn the te u aalian zta entitled to be con sidered for reoularization. The fact that

¶133

¶134

SN,J w]56t12022

¶135

thee Dlo r has not unde k, such e'xercise of reoularizatio n urith,n srx mdnths of the decision in m or tsu was unde to imi n ht for in terms of the above directions i.n Umadevi as a o e-time measuie.

¶136

These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in t-tmadevi. The Appellant (Zila panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in umadevi or thereafter.

¶137

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only fufther direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) futfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi. If they futfi them, their services have to be regularized, If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 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 services need not be regutarised. 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 appeat is disposed of accordingly.

¶138

fn the I udoment of the DEx Cou rt tn Ni al Sinoh and others v. Stateo fP un IabreDo in( 2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court consadered the case of absorptaon of Specaal Polace Officers appointed by the State, whose

¶139

¶140

SN,J \yP_25617 _2022

¶141

wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal^their services were made available. It hetd that the^{mere fact} that wages were^paid by the Bank did^{not render the} appellants 'employees' of those Banks since^the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that^{the creationof a} cadre or sanctioning of^posts for a^{cadre is a matter} exclusively within the authority of the^{State, but if the} State did not choose to create a cadre but chose^{to make} appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, ats action is arbitrary.Ital so refusedto acceot the defence that there were^{nosa nctionedDosts} r rvl G"i +here was irral. ification for t1r6 C+t+6 to rr+:l servaces of Iaroe number of eoole like the aDD llants for decade It held that "sanctioned oosts do not fall f^rom heaven" and that the State^has to^{create them bva} hoice h ba sis m r ional ass men R ferrin t made held that the a lla nt h m were n ta bi r ril chosen the r initia intmen n a ular'a ointmen ith been made in accordance with the statutorv rocedure

¶142

¶143

SN,J w]s6t1 2022

¶144

nracfr ibed under the Police i-t 1861 rnd +he Gl'afa cannot be heard to sa that theva re not enti edto be absorbed into the se rvt ces of the State on ermanent basis as. accor d TNoto t-t hetr aooointments were ourelv temoorarv and not aoaanst anv sanctioned Dosts created bv the State. It was hel that the iudoment in Umadevi cannot becom a ti cence for exDloitation bv the Statea nd its instrumentaliti esa nd neither the G^o vernment of Puniab nor thoseD ublic sect r Banks can contin^UE such a ractice inconsistent with their Ii ation ton I ccordance with th n titution

¶145

The iudomen to f t heA Dex Court re orted in 2O15 SCC Online SC t797 Jretween B.Sri nivasul and others v Nellore Munici Dal CorDoration Reo bv its Com lss oner Di stri A dhra Prade h n oth icul

¶146

paras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶147

(7) We find it difficu lt to ac,ceDt the reasonino adooted bv the Hioh Court. The riohfn the a DT) ella nts to seek reoUIarization flows from the G.O. No.272 dated 22.4.7994 The aooellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onl^{v Drior to the} issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of .o. till t 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

*-.-

SN,J \vp 25617 ]022

without regularising the service of the appeltants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶152

In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appettants 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' senrices be regutarised with effect from the date of their compteting their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 480.

¶153

rnAm rka nt Rai v tate of Bih ar reDorted ( 2015) 8 scc 265. the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emnlo ment of those oers(ln s who had served the Sta te Government and their i nstru menta I ities for more than ten vea rs". In that case, emDlovee was workino for 2 vea rs. This decision a DDroves earlier viewex oressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.

¶154

L7. I State of Jarkhand v KamaI Prasad reoorted in ( 20L4\ 7SC^?)) 3 s!^{lrt f} lar view s taken hrr iha Supreme Court and it was held as follows :

¶155

¶156

SN,J wp 256t7 2022

¶157

"47.... In view of the cateqorical findinq of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resnondent emDlovees have continued in their ser for more than 70 vears continuouslv therefore. t^,h e leoal nrinciole laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case^(stete of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 souarelv aoolies to the Dresent cases. The Division Bench of the Hiqh Court has riohtlv held that the resDondent emDlovees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with bv this Court."

¶158

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶159

The iudqment of the ADex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Mah e rashtra and Others re DOrted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 a nd tn D a rticula r Da ra Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶160

"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, but are dutv-bound to exercise such ower where the Governme r blic authori has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised

¶161

¶162

SN,J \P 25617 2022

¶163

discretion conferred u Don it bV astatut , or a rule, or a ool rc d EC tonof theGovern ment or as exercrse d such .l scretion rnalafi deor on irrelevant conside ration.

¶164

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."

¶165

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment d ated 10. 6.2o13 Dassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2o 1 and 854 t 2OL2 w ile u hol he Jud ment da 20L Dassed in W.P.No.24377 of oO7 and C.C.No.4 of 20oa

¶166

served der: -

¶167

"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 a ppella nt-Corporatio n also issued varlous office o rders/circu lars dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman, As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of 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 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 aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

¶168

2L. The Division Bench of this €ourt in its Judqment dated L9.O9.2OL7 Dassed in w .P.N o-27 2L 7 of 2OL7

¶169

¶170

SN,J ltp]5617 ]022

¶171

reDorted in 2018( 2 )A D naoe 282a Dara 16 and ra18

¶172

observed as under:-

¶173

*16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article^{141 of the} Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the^timethe judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court,^while denouncing the practice of regularization^{and absorption of f} persons, who entered service through back doors by^givinga go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments^to one-time public posts, consciously ordered for a bsorption/reg u la riza tion of those, who^{were workingfora} period of not less than 10 years. It has^given directions^{in this} regard to all the State Governments and also^{Union of India.} The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious^{of various State} enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive^{orders suchas} G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994,^{while giving directionsin} Para No.53 of the^judgmenl in uma^{Devi's case (supra).But} still, it has not made any exception in^{favourof the States where} State enactments banning regu^{la rization/absorptionexist.} Ther re. Act 2 of 1 I 4 1OO andG^_o M s No.212^dated 22.4.L994 dn n.! tw hittla .lown fha wt.lt h a nd th^e iudqm nt an Maniula Bash ini's^{case(suora). does not} lnurar +lr +i-i^-+^-r, ^^fth A ctio b^{r, lha} m c in Par f its m n De case⁽ uora)- It is. t her^e fore. not^{oermissiblefor the} resDon ents to take helteru nder ct 2ot L994 and G.O. 212 22. o lar n the o itio ners. wh have admittedlv. satisfi ed the criteria Ialdd ovvn inPera No. 53 of^th e I udoment in Uma Devi's case^(suora),

¶174

For the aforementioned reasons. order,^{dated 27.6.2017,} in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the^{Tribunalis set aside} and t t llo hth n h n n n e rts f he s tn xistin n res or tn th ct tr at ln h criter d n Par ft men Devi's ca e su a hi roc be m n hs fr ate tof this order."

¶175

¶176

SN,J wp-25617 2022

¶177

The Divisio nB enc n of th is Court in its -Iu oment dated 21. 04.2 o2o Dassedi n I.A. Nos 1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P. No.23O5 7 of 2OL9 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 at Daras 4 5, 48 and oara 50 observed as u n der: -

¶178

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of servlce 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.

¶179

It is not known whv the 1st resDondent as not followed the de ision in U a Devi's case (su or ), as la in .L. K ca and un o ne-ti m e exercrse of DreDa rrno the list of dail waqe emolo vees who ad worked for more th n ten ( lO) vears withou t the interventi on of the Cou and Tribuna sason 1O.4.2006 and su biect them a Drocess verification as to whether thev a workino aoainst vacant oosts and sess r site tion t e os n if reqular ize their servrces.

¶180

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rele-ting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 76 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resD ondents are d re ed to reo ul a rtze on one-time basis ition ervt f the r om o e on es fr h initial dates of their aoDoint ment. But, thev shall not be entitled to anv monetarv relief. The said exercis e shal! be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receiDt of co of rder. "

¶181

23. This Court ooines that in the Dresent case, the s on nts f ed to ischa heir ln ex mt I

{

SN,J etp_25617 2022

of the oner rre u n e wh ts ln as fu wee n h r to consider uest to he I service of the oetitioner in the last rade oost of full time sweeDer as reoular one for all^DurDoses bv^{qrantino last} qrade oav with oeriodical in rement revised from time to m e date intment o itioner accordance to law.

¶186

This Co rt o D tnes that Detitioner is entitled for consideration of oetitioner's^case for^{qrant of} t^{he reliefas} nrawar{ far i n t hari reseni llf rlt Petition rtt vt wof +lra observati ns of the Aoex Court in^various i^udoments (referred to and extracted bove) and the vi w of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments^{referred to} and extracted above.

¶187

Takino into consideration:-

¶188

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the^case. b) The submissions made by the learned^counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent^Nos.4 &⁵

¶189

¶190

SN,J wp-25617 2022

¶191

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

¶192

i)(202o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 395 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) sCC247 (vii) (2013) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2O1s) I SCc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶193

d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated OB.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶194

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

¶195

¶196

SN.J wp.2561't 2022

¶197

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1 of^{2O19 and} W.P.No.23O57 of 2OA9 (referred to and extracted above).

¶198

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

¶199

The Writ Petition is all^o wed the oeti onerl s directed to out-forth the claim of the Detittoner for req ularization of Detitioner's servrc es. and also the cl^arrn f t h +ioner to treat the ora r serv fth oetitioner in the last orade o st of Sweeoer^as ular one for all Durposes bv orantino last^qrade oav with oeriodical tncremen s revised from time to time from the d^{ate of} aooointment f the Det t Ioner and all conseouential benefits, dulv enclosin o a I the relevant doc me nts in sqp of^petitione r's case as DU -forth in the resent n wt ana eriod o o 1 w lr mt date of recei ot of coov of the order and the resDondents shall examine and conside r the^s ame rn^{accorda nceto} law, in conformitv with orincioles of natural iustice^by nralvttl tn ttl no^rtrt ort^{r rn ih-r af} ne fG n I hearin l^ th

¶200

¶201

SN,J w]s6t1 J022

¶202

tion r rn r s of orders ass the Su m o Court in Um a Devi'scase renorted in 2OO5 4)scCPa e1 the iudo ment D assed in W.P .N .24377 ot 2OO7 dated 08.o9 .2O1O reoo edi n2O 1 1 ) ALD Paoe 234 and as con rmed in W.A.No.742 of 2O1O dated 10 .06.201 . and also as Der Division Ben ch^j udo ment of this Court dated 19.O9.201 7 oassed tn W.P.No.27217 ot 20O7 reoo din 2018(2) ALD aoe282a nd also the Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated 2t.o4.20 20 Dassed in I.A.N s.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W .P.No.23O 57 ot 2OL9 reported in 2020(4)ALD oaoe 379 which had attained finali within a Deraod of four (O4) weeks from the date of receiDt of a coDv of t is order. dulv takin q into consr eration the observations and the law laid down bv the A ex Cou rt IN the var ous iudome nts (referred to and extra ed abo ve ) and in oarticular. ra No.53 of the iudoment of the Aoex Court in the case of te of Ka rnata v. Um a Devi an d dul omm unicate the decision to the oetitioner. However. t ere shall be no order astocosts.

¶203

SN,J wp 25617 2022

¶204

¶205

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶206

Petition, sha Il stand closed.

¶207

To,

¶208

SdI-^{P.C.SULE KH A_D-EVI} ASSISTAN',REGISTRAR /

¶209