Allowed

Golla Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC22 Jul 2025WP/25985/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking regularization of the petitioner's 35-year contingent service as a full-time sweeper. The Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner's service as regular from the date of appointment and grant last grade time-scale benefits and consequential retirement advantages.

What did the court decide?

Regularization of petitioner's service from date of appointment; grant of last grade time-scale pay and consequential monetary benefits including pension and gratuity.

Golla Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2s98sOF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

9olla^{Mallaiah,_S/o Mallaiah,aged about 54 years,} Workino as Continoent Sweeper in UpS:^pilisundta, Maipaly Mandat, Viriidoao o-iiliiici,-r5l''-'-""'

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of relanoana. qp. . qy. its. principar Secretary, panchayathraj Department, Telangaia S6cretariat, nyOeiaOaal-^---

¶12

2 I!:^!|1E_qf Telangana, rep by its. principat Secretary, Finance and planning uepanment, I etangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District collector and chairman of Selection committee and Minimum Wages Committee, Mahabubabad District.

¶14

The zilla Praja Parishad, Vikarabad District, Rep. by its chief Executive Officer.

¶15

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District, TS.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner nor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on full time basis from 35 long years in the contingent post without any service progress by paying pittance wage of Rs. 4000/- per month by denying him to pay legitimate or living wages in violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Equal Remuneration Act,^.1976 and Article 14, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43, 300 (A) of our Constitution and not implementing Govt. Orders issued in GO Ms. No. 193 GAD, dated 14-03-1990 and subsequent Govt. Orders

¶18

by the respondent Chief Executive Officers as unjust, unfair, totally illegal and unconstitutiona by subjecting the petitioner for eiploitative enslavement due to his helplessness conditions of poverty, poor social, economical political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents and prays to direct the respondents horein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment by applying the decision and principle laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1)SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Honble Court in Wp No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02-05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Honble High Court of A.P. in W.A.No. 483 ot 2021 dated 05-08-2021 based on principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23-03-2018 to 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 inrluding periodical increments, as revised from time to time with 100 % compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (hLD 3 ot 2O19 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the honble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitutic,n by this Honble Court in the case of petitioner.

¶19

t&NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondenls herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one by granting full time sweeper wages as paid to his colleague full time Sweepers working in parrchayat schools in time scale of pay of last grade post forthwith.

¶21

Counsel for tiire Petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA,

¶22

SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

SN, J

¶26

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶27

WDTT DFTTTT'I N No. ,<oQE^(rE Un )

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Servaces-Il, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, tearned Standing Counsel for appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 & 5.

¶30

The oetitioner aporoached the Court seekinq oraver as under:

¶31

"...to issue an order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the^inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the^{services of the} petitioner nor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on full time basis from 35 long years in the contingent^post without any^service progress by paying pittance wage of Rs.4000/^per month by denying him to pay legitimate or living^{wages in} violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act,¹⁹⁴⁸ Equal Remuneration Act 1976 and Article^{14, L6, 2L,} 39(d), 43, 300(A) of our Constitution^andnot implementing Govt Orders issued^{in G.O'Ms.No'193GAD} dated 14.03.1990 and^{subsequent Govt Orders by the}

SN, J

respondent Chief Executive Officers as unjust unfair totally illegal and unconstitutional by subjecting the petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helplessness conditions of poverty poor social ecc'nomical political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment by applying the decision and principle laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of prem Singh Vs State of U.P (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of thi:; Honble Court in W.p. No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Ca:;es dated 02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Honble High Court of A.p in W.,4. No. 483 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 based on prilciple laid by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1214 of 2018 Apex Court dated 23.03.2018 to 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 100 perrcentage compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand in C.l.No 34t6-3445 of 2O1O and Batch Cases ctated t9.02.2ot9 (ALD 3 of 2Ot9 SC 32) by applying the afcrresaid princr-ples and decisions of the honble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our

¶36

¶37

SN, J

¶38

constitution by this^{Honblecourt in the case of} petitioner and Pass...".

: € i

SN, J

Learned standinq counsel aooearino on behalf of the resDondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the oetitioner as out-forth in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addre to the resDondents herein s on date and +h +ha 6afili.r n r nrri aarrrnlrirt in.aali n fiti iha part of resoondents herean in co nsiderinq the qrievance of the_oelitioner and hence, the relief as oraved for by the oetitioner in the oresent Wit oetition cannot be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the respondents hereunder as souqht for and the Detitaoner mav be d irecte to out-forth the Detit on r's orievance as outforth in the Dresent Writ Petition bywavofad etailed reoresentataon to the respondents herein and upon receipt of the saad representation, the resDondents would consider the same in accordance to taw. within a reasonable oeriod.

¶44

Learned counsel ao earinq on behalf of the o tioner does not disoute the said submission made bv the learned StEllldino counsel apoearino on behatf of the respondent No.4

¶45

¶46

SN, J

¶47

The ADex Court an the iud ment reoorted in^(2O20) 1 SCC^(L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of ljttar Pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as under:

¶48

"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 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 reoular establishment and the seruices rendered bv them riqht f m the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for Duroose of oension."

¶49

a. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwa District PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emoloyees Association Vs. State of l(rrnrfrla ran r.iad in I OOn/ 2\ Gl^l^ Drrra ?O lrilf rr.inr. It that the State should not keeo a oerson in temoorarv or

*:/_

SN, J

adhoc service for lono oeriod and have to treat such

¶54

Dersons as reqular one.

¶55

O Drrr No.^{q? af ilra nf flra irrrfa} m niaf a ArtaY artr. F+ an the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadeva, dated 1O.O4.2OO6 reoorted in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted

¶56

hereunder:-

¶57

"53. One asDect needs to be clarified. The mav be cases where irreoular aDDointments (not illeqal apooantments) as explained in S.V. Naravanappa 11967⁽¹⁾ SCR 1281, R.N. Naniundaooa 11972 (1) SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naqaraian 11979 (4) SCC 5O7I and referred to in^para 15 above, of dulv oualified p been maOe ana tne emo work for ten vears or more but without the The ouestion of reoularization of the services of such emDlovees may have to considered on merits in sases abovereferred iudoment.^{In that} context. the Union of Indaa, the State Covernments an should take steos to reoularize as a one-time measu re, the services of such irreqularlv aooointed, who ave worked for ten vea or more in dulv n n r courts or of tribunats and should further ensure that geoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those I I

¶58

¶59

SN, J

¶60

The iudoment of the ADex Court^{dated20.12.2024,} reoorted in 2O24 La Suit(SC) 12 in Jaooo Anita and others v. Union of India and oth^{rs, and the} levant Daraqraoh Nos.12 L3, 24, 6.27 and 28 are ext cted hereu nder:

¶61

"12. Despite being labelled as^"part-time workersr" the appellants^{performedthese} 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.

¶62

The claim bv the resoondents^that these were not reqular oosts^{lacksmerit, as} the nature of the^{work oerformed bv the} apoellants was^{perennaal and fundamentalto} the functionino of the^{offices. Therecurring} nature of these duties necessitates^their classification as regular^{posts, irrespective of how} their initial engagements^{were labelled' It is also} noteworthy that subsequent^{outsourcingof these} same tasks to^private agencies^afterthe 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 workin} question was neither temporary^{nor ocgasional.}

¶63

¶64

SN, J

¶65

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 e:<ample from the private sector, illu strating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providi ng benefits. In this case Microsoft classified certain workers as inde pendent contractors, thereby denying them employee b,:nefits. The U,S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were,lo farct, common-law employees and were entitle dto the same benefits as regular em ployees. The Court n,cted that large Corporations have increasingly a,Jopted the practice of hiring temporary enployees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefi ts thereby tncreas ing their profits. This judgment un derscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine em ployment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It I h n n n n h n

¶66

While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appoint ments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its princi ples are often misi nterpreted or misapplied to deny lelgitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between ,'illegal" and "irregular" appointments. orr held emDlovees

¶67

However, the laudable intent of tlre judgment is being subverted when institutions r,ely on its dicta to indiscrimina tely reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their

¶68

¶69

SN, J

¶70

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 a ppropriate. This selective aool ication distorts the iudoment's soirit and ouroose. effectivelv weaoonizinq it aqainst emolovees who have rendered indisoensable 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, 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 befterment of labour practices an the country.

¶72

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:

¶73

i. The termination orders dated 27.LO.ZOLA are quashed;

¶74

¶75

SN, J

¶76

!t. t! H we r. the ao llants shalI not be nefitsl ck wa es r the Deriod thev ave not worked for but wo td

¶77

reDO an 2025rNSC t44 ln^*sH RTPALAN D oTHER v. NAGA N AM G AZ D", in rtacular the evant pru

¶78

'r.5. n a tnuou nd th !rs erv Ges ov rs everal ars. so etimes s nn, o than ad eca e. h I r r f I r

¶79

¶80

SN, J

¶81

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

¶82

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, Ets 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 governmenta I operations.

¶83

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 increasinqly become a mechanism to 2024 seC'olf nkE^sdh3gzetvhoe^f ohg'-16p*'-odlifiatttiits owed to employees. These practices manifest in severa! ways:

¶84

. Misuse of "TemDor rv" Labels: Emolovees enqaqed for work that is essential, recurrinq, and inteoral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temoorary" or "contractual," even en their roles mirror those of reoular emplovees. Such

¶85

gic;$*l!#klGr+FrEirii{''ftI!rtf;+<L<Pji?'.'-ii{r;i i:'1. ;

¶86

¶87

sN, ,

¶88

mtsclas ifica on deo ves wor rs of he nt I identical tasks.

¶89

. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, i, ,""n in the present case. This practice undermines the principl-es of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardiess of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities ior still development, promotions, or inciemental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, lieating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions O_-eing equally significant.

¶90

. Using . Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing rotes performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. T'his tr;ctice not only .perpetuares exploitation but atso Oemonitrates a deliberate effort to bypass the oUtigation to offer regular employment.

¶91

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as.'pension, provident fund, health lnsuiance, and paid .leave, even when their tenure^-'spans decades. This lack of social security suO;ects tfrem and their families to undue hardship, eipeciaffy in cases of illness, retirement, ;; unfoi"seen circumsta nces. "

¶92

The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s ir'ability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some rneasure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only

i II

SN. J

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.

¶97

ln light of these considerations, the^Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen standsⁱⁿ violation of the most basic labour law^principles. Once^{it is} established that their services were terminated^without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the^{U.P. Industrial} Disputes Act, L947, and that thev were enoaoed in

SN, J

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 oiders 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.

¶103

IL The Respondent Employer shall reinstate th e Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment.

¶104

III. Considering the length of seryice, the Appellant Workmen shall be entifled 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 mont'hi from the date of their reinstatement.

¶105

v ate a fair and tran Dare tD ss for nths the date ment, dulv DO In requl rization, the r r I r AoDella tw orkmen or similarlv situa

¶106

¶107

SN, J

¶108

to ensure these lonqtime emolovees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waqes contrarv to statutorv and eouitable norms.

¶109

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."

¶110

L2. The Aoex Court in a iudoment reoorted in^(2O17) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaoiit Sinq and others at Paras 54 an its sub-Daras

¶111

I 1 , 2^lf?l af +lra ari;l irrzlrrrtani altca

¶112

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

¶113

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contradual 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, shatt be entitted to minimum of the^{regular pay scalefrom} the date of engagement.

¶114

if dailv oerc, ad oc or con ctual appointees are not aopointed aoainst^redular sanctioned oosts and their seruices are^availed continuouslv, with notional breaks. by the^State Government or iE instrumentallties for a sufficient tong period i.e. for 70 yeats' such dailv waoers, ad hoc or contractual apooinfues shall be entitled^to minimum of the regular oav scale without^anv

¶115

¶116

SN, J

¶117

allowances on the assumption that work of oerennial nature is available and havina worked for such lona oeriod of time. an eouitable rioht is created in such cateoory of oercons. Their claim for reoularization. if anv, mav have to be considered separatelv in terms of legallv oermissible scheme.

¶118

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

¶119

fhe iudoment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.tKesari and others, in oarticular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as

¶120

under:

¶121

The sion in State of Karnataka v, Umadevi was rendered on 7O.4 .2006 heoorted in 2006 G) sCC 7). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made wit:hout following the due process or the rules relating to ap,oointment did not confer any right on the appointees and coiJrts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, reqularization, 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 ar.angement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nc,r lend themselves to be instruments to facititate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held . that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in aclherence of Articles 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the se'me is extre,cted below :

¶122

¶123

SN, J

¶124

"53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There^{may be} cases where irreoular appointments^(not illeqal apoointmenBl as exolained in S.V. Naravanaooa t7967⁽⁷⁾ SCR 72AL R.N. Naniundaooa 17972⁽⁷⁾ s,CC 4O9l and B,N. Nadaraian 17979⁽⁴¹ s,CC 5O7l and referred to in oara 75 above. of dulv aualified ,,ers,ons in duly sanctioned vacanc^posts miaht have been made and the emoloveen have continued to work for ten vearc or mote but without the intervention of orderc of the courF or of tribunals. The ouestion of teoula tion of the services of such emplovees may have to be considered on merits in the liohc of the ?,rinciples settted bv chis Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this iudomenL fn that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steos to regularize^as a one-time measute. the services of such irreaularlv aooointed. who have worked for ten^vearc or^more in duly sanctioned oosfs but not under cover of orderc of the courfs or of tribunals and should further ensure that reaular recruitments^are undettaken to fill those vacant sanccioned^posfs that reouire to be filled up. in cases^where temoorant emolovees or daili ,waoerc are beina now emoloyed. The orocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. ....

¶125

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

¶126

(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^{voluntarilyand} continuously for more than ten^years.

¶127

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointmehts^are not^{made or} continued against sanctioned^posts or^{where the persons} appointed do not possess the^prescribed minimum^{qualifications,} the appointments wilt be considered to^{be illegal, But where the} person employed possessed the prescribed^{qualifications and} was working against sanctioned^{posts, but had been selected}

¶128

¶129

SN, J

¶130

witt'out undergoing the process of open competitive - ' selection, suclt appointments are considered to be irresif"i.

¶131

) v, casts a du u on the co ed

¶132

1'he term 'one-time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective. This _would normally mean that ut"i iii decision in lJmadevi, each departm"rt 'o, iiri' instrumentality shortld undertake a one_time'.r"rriru ia-piipare a tist of all casual, dairy-wage or ad hoc.emproyees in[ n{i been woi*ig f31, mory than ten years .withoui ti" iit"iiiiii of courts and tribunats and subject them to " pii"ri i'iiinr"tion as to whether they are working against va'cant posts-and possess the requisite quatification for tln. port-;l.rlj iili,-regutarize tneir sen,ices.

¶133

,qt the end of six months from the date of decision in U m it d ev i, ca ses of seve ra t a a i ry ya g ey ii i-_ n iii iu i u t e m p I oyees w:r? stitt pending before .Coufrs. coni.iiiruv, severat departments and instrumentalities did ,ii ,oii.rru the one_ t!.:^:gs-u!?ri?tion process. on the othei'- nand, some bove.rnment departments .^{or instrumentalities undeiook} thi one-time exercise exctuding . several i_jioy.., from con:;ideration either on the groind that their cas{s"were pending in courts or due to sheer.oversight. tn suin-iiiimstances, the e:lptgyees who were entitted to-oe coniui)ei'ii'i"r., of para 53 cf the decision in umadevi, ii ,;;b; ;;.;, right to be con:;idered for regularization,' merely--biiii'in" one_time exe;cise was completed without ,orrdiiii-tnli, ,ur"r, o, beanuse the six month Denoct mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-iime exercise snoud iiniaer al! daity wage/adhoc/those employees_yvlo- had pri-ii-to yearc of continuous seruice as on 7O.4.2OOA friioii avaiting the protection of any interim orders of ,oui iiliUinats. If any emptoyer had held the one_.time "*"ai-i, ieiiZr para ss of umadevi, but did not consider the ;;;;;;;i'Ziprcyee, wno wer,e entiued to the benefit or p"riiiiiuiu;;;';h" ,rirtinuation emptoyer of concerned should consider their cases "tio, ii i

¶134

¶135

SN, J

¶136

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.

¶137

The obiect behind the said direction in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First s to ensure that those who have put in more than ten vears of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularization in view of their lono seruice. Second is to ensure that the departmenElinstrumentalities do not peroetuate the oractice of emoloying oercons on daily-waoeladhoc/casual for long oeriods and then oeriodically regularize them on the oround that thev have serued for more than ten vears. therebv defeatina the constitutional ot statutory^provisrons relating to recruitment and aooointment. The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 70.4.20O6^(the date of decision in Umadevil without the protection of anv inte,rim order of anv court or tribunal, in vacant posls, oossessino the reauisite aualification. are entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that the emolover has not undertaken such exercise of reaularization within six months of the declsion in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emoloyees. the rioht to be considered for teoularization in cerms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

¶138

These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadail has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

¶139

The Division Bench of the High Court has direded that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law, The only further 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) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill

¶140

¶141

SN, J

¶142

tl1em, their services have .to be regutarized. If such an exercise ha-s atready been undertaken ov iiiiiniir'Liiiiirg the cases of respondents r to 3 because'ofihe p;!;.;;;;ii";;.;;r; tllen their cases shall have to Oe consiieiiA ih^{-iontinuation} of the said one time exercise within three iiiii.' tl t, needtess to s:?y that if the respondents do not tutfiil ih;' iquirements of P,ara 53 of Umadevi, their seruices r"ua ,it-,"|igutarised. If tlle employees who have completed t"n yi"i ii*iru ao not possess the educationat oualifications pnririOua iir tne post, at ttte lim.e of their appointment, th;f ;;r-;; ionsidered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeat is disposed of accordingly.

¶143

In th iu ment of e AD Court nNihal Sinqh a d ersv. te P nia b DO ln o1 )1 4 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 disposar their services were made avaitable. ft 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 disciptinary control vested with the State. ft held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments ol persons creating contractuat relationship, its action is arbitrary. ft atso refused to

¶144

¶145

SN. J

¶146

services of laroe number of oeoole like the aooellants for lt

¶147

bv the State. It was held that the^judqment in Umadevi

': ... .,:._,.-:.EE

SN, J

o o1 7 B d v I

Nellore District, Andhra Prad esh and oth rs, in oartic Iar oaras 17 and 8 reads as under:

¶154

(7) Hioh Court. The riaht of the a nts to seek ularization nt G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the c.O. 21 2(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regulartsing the seruice of the appellants and continued tct extract work from the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground tha{ the appeilants approached ttre Tribunal belatedty, in our opinion, is'itot iuitinbb. n the circumstances, the appeal is altowed modifying'tie order under appeal -by directing that the appettants, ,.*ii", be regutarised with effect from the date of their comptetinj- thii,^-frn" y"", q)ntinuous senrice as was laid down by this'Court in District Cillector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L, Singh A Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480.

¶155

In Ama nt Rai v Sta of ihar reDo 201s)8 SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that .The objective behind the exceptaon carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregutar but not illega!, and to ensure appointments, whach are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of

¶156

¶157

SN, J

¶158

Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten

¶159

In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reoorted in (2014) 7 SCC 223. similar view was taken bv the

¶160

"47.... In view of the categorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent employees applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the intertered with by this Court."

¶161

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

¶162

in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also

¶163

. .i....._.. : ' ..:. . .i

¶164

¶165

SN, J

¶166

confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No,32847 of 2024.

¶167

¶168

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

¶169

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.,,

¶170

¶171

"Further, it is manifest ft-om the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law C,curts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued

¶172

¶173

SN, J

¶174

various office orders/circulars 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 25-} T 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 nothingbut unfair} labour^practice attracting the^{provisions gf} Section^{25-Tof 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^{impugnedorders,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."

¶175

2r.. The Divi sion Bench of is Court in its Judoment

¶176

dated 19.O9.2OA7 Dassed in W.P.No.272l7^of2Ol7 reported an 2O18(2)ALD^paoe 282 at^{Dara 16 and Dara 18}

¶177

observed s under:-

¶178

"16. It is trite that the law declared by^{the SupremeCourt is} binding throughout the country under Article^{141 of the} Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that^{by the time the} judgment in lJma 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 Couft,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 fora} 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 consciousof various State} enactments such as Act 2 of 1994^{and executive orders such as} ,G.O,:. Ms..^{No2.12,.-d.a-qeC,.22.4.!994, .Ythilegiving directions in'.,:: '} Para No,53 of the^judgment in^{llmaDevi's case (supra).But} still, it has not made any exception^{in favour of the States where} State enactments banning regularization/absorption^exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and^{G.O,Ms. No.212, dated} 22.4.1994. do not whittle down^{the width and the} iudoment in ltfanr'ula Bashini's case^{(suora), does not}

SN, J

Deyi's case^(supra).

For the aforementioned reasons, order dated 27.6.2Ot7 inOAN o.L442 of 2O14, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and thll aE ts."

¶183

D in da 21.o4.20 O oassed in .A.Nos.lot2 O2O in 1ot2o19 and w^D o.230 57 ol O19 reDo in2o20(4)ALD qe

¶184

X.9 at oaras 45, 48 and oara 5O observed as under:_

¶185

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on d,aily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) yeaE of s:rvice by now. They have been given minimum time_scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without aly Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

¶186

4a. It is ot kn the 1st nd t has not

¶187

ressEilelheir serylecs!

¶188

¶189

SN, J

¶190

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constltution of India; thg respondents are directed to reoularaze on one-tame basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners a.tltinlata 'l O verr.c ^f <arvi arr ellilv r^rl^ac fF.irt +ha irrifirl .lelac ^f fhair rnrl.tiir+ 'rral'} Rr r+ llrarr ahrll rr^i lia entitled to any monetarv relaef. The said exercise shall be done within two⁽²⁾ weeks from the date of receipt of coov of the order."

¶191

This Court ooines that in the^present case. the respondents faaled to discharoe their duw an examinino the reouest of the oetitioner for reoularization of petitioner's servaces, who is workino as full time sweeoer and further to consader has reouest to treat the temporarv service of the Detitioner in t e last orade oost of full time sweeper as reoular one for all DurDoses bv orantino last orade Dav with oeriodical increment revise from time to time from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law.

¶192

This Court oDines that ioner is entitled for consaderataon of^petitioner's case for orant of the relief^as nrtvar{ n +he ttr.aca.i+ ril Dalitian in rri af iha observataons of the Apex Court in various^iudqments

¶193

¶194

SN, J

¶195

(-teferrea to ana extractea aUo

¶196

Division Bench of this court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

¶197

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

¶198

c) The observations of the Apex court in the various judgments (refemed to and extracted above) and again enlistecl below:

¶199

i)(2o2o) 1 ScC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) scc page 396 (aii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2(J24 LawSuit(SC) LZO9 (v) (2017) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scC- 241 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC t7g7 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x:) (2oL4) 7 S,Cc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of ZO24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) zOLt (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶200

¶201

SN, J

¶202

d) The Division Bench order of this rt 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol^2O1O and^{854 of} 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated^O8.O9.201O passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of^2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶203

e) The ision Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.272l7 ot^{2O17 (referred to} and extracted above),

¶204

f) The Division Bench order of this^{Court dated} 2L.O4.2O2O^passed in I.A.Nos.l of^{2O2O in 1 of 2019 and} W.P.No.23O57 ol 2019^(referred to^{and extractedabove).}

¶205

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

¶206

¶207

SN, J

¶208

increments revised from time to time from the date of apoointment of the oetitioner and ail conseouential benefi dulv encl inq all the evant docu nts in suppor!: of^petitioner's case as out-forth in the oresent lgrit oetition. within a oeriod of one^(o1) week from the daiEe o! receiot of copv of the order and the respondents SlExamine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformitv with orincioles of natural iustice by @inq an oooortuniw of personal .hearinq to the petitioner, in terms of orders oassed by the suoreme court in uma Devi's case reported in 2oo6(4) scc paoe 1, the judoment passed in w.p.No.24377 of 2oo7 dated o8.o9.2o1o reoorted in 2o11 (1) ALD, paqe 234 and as @ted in w.A.No.782 of 2o1o dated 1o.o6.2o13. and algre oer O:Vision eench

¶209

2018( paqe nd also the Division Bench Ullruent of this Court dat I.A. .1 of 2O inlof2O 19 in W.P. 9.23O57 ol 2019 in2 o20(4) Daqe 379 which had ined firuV. witnin a oerioa of

¶210

¶211

SN, J

¶212

of iDt of a coDv of t is order,^{dulv takin} into cons deration the obse ations a d the la laid d nbv A tn s n n extracted abovel. and in^{oarticular,oara No.53 of the}

¶213

v V' ul mu h h r r ha n order asto sts.

¶214

Miscellaneous Petitions,^if of,y, pending in this^Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶215

SD/. S. MALLIKARJUNA^RAO ASSISTANT RE,EISTRAR //TRUE COPY// la SECTIOI(OFFICER

¶216

One Fair Copv to the^{Hon'ble MRSJUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA} ' ' (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusal)

¶217

To,

¶218