Allowed

Banoth Shankar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Aug 2025WP/26116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A temporary sweeper engaged on compassionate grounds sought regularization after over twenty years of continuous service with last-grade pay benefits. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on regularization of long-serving irregularly appointed employees, the Court directed respondents to examine his claim under para 53 of Umadevi within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation with documents within four weeks; respondents to examine and consider regularization per para 53 of Umadevi and related orders, in accordance with law,

Banoth Shankar Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

|³²⁵²¹

¶2

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

¶3

IMONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:2611 6 0F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Banoth Shankar. S/o Balaii,. aged about 51 years, Working as Temoorarv Sweepe r, U^pS. H em ta rna l,o a, lrrre I ta^{-c"rr"e;r,t;;;;"} i S u rya pet D isl rict.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telanoana rep. by its principal Secretary, panchayathraj

¶12

D.epartment, r ne srate oI Ietanga Ielanoana. ia secreGiiatl reo. by its principal H;;";;;;;:"' ""'Secretary, Finance and plannino Depa rtme nt, Go vt. of tera nila n6, rer, n g ;il d*.",:j5lili, H ydera bad.

¶13

The District coilector tpincnayat[^-an-J c"n]ri"irX' of Minimum waoes 9.orry!.t""^{and District Sitection} borritte". S*rir,roEi Oirtri.t

¶14

praja parishad, survipet olsi;;i"ii;;. by its chief Executive

¶15

5?r?"f,,," The Mandal Develooment Officer, Mandal praja parishad, Melia Cheruvu Arlandal, Suryapet Didtrict.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 0t the conslitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the rast grade post for continuousry working tifl date in temporary post of rast grade in contingent estabrishment on compassronate grounds from 20-11-2001 nor regurarizing his services even on compretion of 20 rong years service by not extending the rast grade pay benefits with periodicar increments from time to time with effect from 20-11-2001 to tifl date from time to time with arrears as per Go Ms. No. 687 dated 03-10-1977 to ti, date is highry unjust and unfair as per Article 14, 16, 21,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of lndia by subjecting petitioner for exproitative ensravement due to his herpress conditions of

¶18

r !

¶19

poverty, poor socrar, economicar and poriticar backgrour 3 by taking it as advantage by the respondents in continuing him on pittance . rages of Rs. .r623l_ p m. and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the r *porary services of petitioner in the last qrade post of sweeper as regular orrr lrtr all purposes by granting rast grade pay with periodicar increment revised fr, l time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 20 rorrr years without any service progress with 100 % compensation on arrears of pa,, as per the principle laid by the Hon'bre Supreme court in c.A. No. 3416 - 344s,r 201 0 dated 1 9-0220.19 in the case of Unron of rndia Vs. Avtar chand (2019: \LD sc 32) and in the case of^prem Singh Vs. State of Up and Batch cases ( r )corted in 20-r g 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37), in the case of Netram i,ahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated jt ;,03_20.18 followed by DB orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in wp No. .l ).z8g of 2017 dated 10-08-2017 (DB) with cost by applying aforesaid principle I r d by the Hon,bte Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circ,stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rray be pleased to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the pe t tioner provided on compassionate grounds vide proc. No. B/3g1/2001/Mpc dater :20-11-200.1 by 5ri, respondent in temporary post of sweeper as per Go Ms. N. ig7 dated 03_101977 as regularone from the date of appointment i.e. from2.(-r1-2oo1in the rast grade post forthwith by paying rast grade time scare benefits t. rhe petitioner with periodical increments revised from time to time

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. CH GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: AGp FOR SERVICES uounset ror the Respondent No.4&5: SRI PRADEEP REDDY I:ATTA,

¶22

SC FOR ZPP AND MPI,

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

SN,J !p 261 l6 1022

¶26

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶27

WRIT P ETITION No.266LG OF 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

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

¶30

The^petitioner approached the Court seekinq Draver

¶31

as under:

¶32

"...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 20-11-2001 nor regularizing his services even on completion of 20 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with effect from 20-112001 to till date From time to time with arrears as per GO Ms.No.6B7 dated 03-10-1977 to till date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article L4, L6,2l,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 respondents in continuing her on pittance wages of Rs.1623/-p.m. and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services oF petitioner in the last

¶33

¶34

SN.J rvp 26ll(, 2022

¶35

grade post of sweeper as regular one for all curposes by granting last grade pay with periodical incr€,r lent revised from time to time from the date of appoir 1 Tent of the petitioner for working 20 long years withoL t ,l ny service progress with 100^o/o comp€flSdtion on arret rs of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supr: I)e Court in C.A. No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 dated 19-0.t .1019 in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand (2C 93ALDSC 32) and in the case of Prem Singh Vs. Stat r of UP and Batch cases (reported in 2019 10 SCC 51(t in paras 36 and 37), in the case of Netram Sahu \ s. State oF Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1Z i4 of 2018, dated 23-03-2018, followed by DB Orders i isued in the case oF Kadar Basha in WP No. 26788 of 2C_ j'dated 1008-2017 (DB) with cost by applying afore j r d principle laid by the Honble Apex Court under Articl( 141 of our Constitution and pass..... "

¶36

Learned counsel aDpearinq on tr, :half f the petitio olacinq reliance on the avermenl made in the affidav led in support of the resent writ oetition Dertaⁱ ntnq in^particular to the services rendered bv oetitioner with the resDondents herein for mo re than a decade contends that the petitioner is err itled for the relief as Draved for in the oresent writ petiti ! [..

¶37

PE RUSED TH E RECORD:-

¶38

DISC USSION A D CONCLU SION:-

¶39

Learned counsel aDDeannq on hr half f the Detitio er submitsth t the su biect rssue ir the Dresent

¶40

T I

¶41

)

¶42

S N-J !'p 16l l6 1021

¶43

case ls squarel Y^{Covered bv the orderof this Court, dated} .o9 as N W.P .24377 2 7re 20LL(1) ALD, Paqe 234^{asconfirmedin W.A.No.782of} 2010 . dated 1 .06.2013^{and alsoorder. dated 19.O9.2017} o18⁽²⁾ ALD Dassed in W.P.N^{o.272L7ot217 reDorted in} Paqe 282 and al so the^{order, dated 2L.O4.2O2O oassed in} w.P No.23O57of20^{9 reDo} ed in 2O 20(4) A^{LD Paqe 379}

¶44

Learne sta ndinq cou nse!^{aooearlnq on behalf of the} res nden N 4s mits the flevan oft toner ut-fo in t r sent rit Pe n had been ad d ressed to the^{resoondentsherer n} s on date and therefore, t e oetiti ner^{canof comlain inaction onthe} part of resDondents hereln ln c^{onsiderin o the qrievanceof} the oetition r and hence, th^{e relief} s Draved for bv the Deti ioner^In the Dr sent Wit oetitio canno be^qra ted and no Mand amus ca n be^{issued aqainst the resoond ents} he n ras ou f ran the aoner ma tre directe dtoDu t-forth^{theoetitioner'sqrivance asDut-} forth in the oresent^{Writ Ptition bv wavof a detailed} reDr entatio n to the resDonde nts herein and uDOn receipt presentation, the resoo ndents would

SN,J \rp 26 l6 2022

consider the same in accordance to lil v, within a reasonable^period.

¶49

Learned counsel appearinq on behalf of lhe Detitioner does not disoute the said submission made 1^y the learned standinq counsel appearanq on behalf of th: resDondent

¶50

No.4

¶51

The Apex Court in the iudqment reoortr I in^(202O) 1 SCC^(L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others. at Dara3 6 held as under:

¶52

"36. There are some of the employees who h;,e: not been regularized in spite of having rendered the serv ces for 3040 or more years whereas they have been sup rannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged est rblishment, not against any particular project, their servi I r:; ought to have been regularized under the Government nstructions and even as per the decision of this Court n State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Coun 1n the said decision has laid down that in case servicer; have been rendered for more than ten years without the^, over of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the e:rvices be regularized of such employees. In the facts⁽ f the case, those employees who have worked for ten yr: r s or more should have been regularized. It would not l l proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizat c r as others have been regularized, we direct that the r ;ervices be treated as a regular one. However, it is ma,l r clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues,f difference in wages had they been continued in servi, e: regularly before attaining the age of superannuation.^-'l t:y shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they li ve retired from the reqular establishment and t 1t servrces rendered bv them rioht from the dav tlr )v entered

;11: ,

SN.J \vD_261 16 2022

h k- r ed est bti h ll be n o ua lifvino service for ouroose of pension."

¶57

The ADex Court in the case of Dha rwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reDorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid orinciole that the State should not keeo a Derson in temDorarv or adhoc service for lonq Deriod and have to treat such persons as reqular one.

¶58

Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs, Um adevi, dated 1O.O4.2006 reported in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereu nd er: -

¶59

"53. One a s Dect needs to be clarified. here mav be cases where irreqular aDpointments (not illeqal aDDointments) as exolai ed in S.V. Naravanaooa L 7 1 scR 128 R.N. N n n 1 2 4 and B.N. Na ara n 1 7 5 and referred to in Dara 15 above, of dulv qualified Dersons in dulv sanctione vacant Dosts miqht have been made and the em Dlovees have continued to work for ten ears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reqularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the^principles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the liqht of this iudqment, In that context the Union of India, the State Governments and their i nstru menta I ities

SN.J \.p_261t6 2022

ch aruld f2 ke ste stor r z !; a one-time measure, the services of such irrequla l lv aooointed, who have worked for ten vears or nore an dulv sanctioned Do sts but not under cover o I orders of the courts or of tribunals and should fu rth e r ensure that reoular recruitments are u ndertaken to fill th ose va ca nt sanctioned Dosts tha reouire tr be filled uo, rn cases where temDorarv e olovees o r dailv waqers are beino now emoloved. The orocess l rust be set in motion within six months from this dat

¶64

The iudo ment of the Aoex ourt date( 2O.L2.2O24, reoorted i 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in JarI oAn a and s v. Union of I ia and othe n the relevant DaraqraDh Nos.12, 13 24, 26, 27 and 28 , rre extracted hereunder:

¶65

:-time "12. Despite being labelled as "pa r workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and conti luous basis over extensive periods, ranginr; from over a decade to nearly two decades. Thei r engagement was not sporadic or tem! ora ry in nature, instead, it was recurrent, r,: J^{ula r,} and akin to the responsibilities ty I ,ically associated with sanctioned posts. Mol., )over, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks durin,S the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶66

The claim bv the respondenl; _^that these were not reoular Dost lacks mr )^{'it, as} the nature of the work oerformed 21^the aooellant was Derennial and fundame I^{tal to} the functionino of the offices. The r(]( Ltrnng nature of these duties necessitates their

-7

SN.J w? 26116 2021

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.

¶72

The landmark judgment oF the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences oF misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same beneFits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature oF the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiqhliqhts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and ensurinq that workers receive fair treatment,

¶73

While the^judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal"

¶74

¶75

SN,J \p 26116 2022

¶76

and "irregular" appoin, rents It cateooricallv held that emolove r, rs rn irreoular aooointm nts, who were enoE r.'] red in dulv sa ctioned Dosts and had s erved continuouslv for more than ten vears S^hould be considered for re^qularization as it onetime measure. However, the laudable ir t 3nt of the^judgment is being subverted when insti Lrtion s rely on its dicta to indiscriminately rej,l 1: the claims oF employees. even in cases whe|t their appointments are not illegal, but merel' ' lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gov€ r lment departments often cite the judgment in Unr r Devi (supra) to argue that no vested ri l rt to regularization exists for temporary emp I )yees, overlooking the judgment's⁽ xplicit acknowledgment of cases where regulariz r .ion is a ppropriate . Thi s selective aDDlication dl ;torts the I udo m e nt's soirit and Dur Dose. eJIe ( !ivelv weaoonizino it aoainst emDlovees wh, l _have rendered in d s Densable services over decades.

¶77

In light of these considerations, n our opinion, it is imperative for gover 1m ent departments to lead by example in providi rr7 fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, esp 3cia lly when their roles are integral to the organiz ):io n's functioning, not only contravenes intenl rtional labour standards but also exposes the orgall zation to legal challenges and undermines emg loyee morale. By ensuring fair emplc r ment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litir; ltion, promote job security, and uphol,j the prancaples of justice and fairness thal they are meant to embody. This approach r lig ns with international standards and !;r rts a positive precedent for the private ser: or to follow, thereby contributing to the^,l rerall betterment of labour practices in the cor rntry.

SN,J \tp 26116 2022

Iri 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 oriqinal application is allowed to the following exte n t:

¶83

i. The termination orders dated 27 .70.2O lB are quashed ;

¶84

. Th ea DDellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their se rvrces re^d ularise d fort hwith. However, the aooellants shall not be to an e nl benefits / back wa o es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the sai d Deriod and the same would be counted for their Dostretiral benefits."

¶85

The -Iudoment of the A Dex Court dated 31.O1.2025 reoorted in 2O25 INSC 144 i *SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZ IABAD", in oarticular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶86

^ 15. It is manifest that the Aooellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several r s eca de. Even if certain muster rolls were not^p!1o(Luced in full, the Emolover's failuret o furnish such recordsns do 1l w ana v e i nference nder well-establi la r

SN,] \p,76t 16 2022

iurisprudence. Indian labour law strc r^r d isfavo r Deroetual dailv-wa^qe or contractual e n oaoe ments in circumstances where the work is I manent in nature. Morallv and leqallv, work€rr s who fulfil on o otn o m U ntc DA reo ulremen ts ve r after year cannot be dismissed summarilv a!i disoe sa ble, a rticu la rl in th n fa enuire contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinit ) "temporary" employment practices as done by a recen judgement oF this court in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following pa ragra phs:

¶91

"22. The pervasive misuse of tempora'y employment contracts, as exemplified in this r: r:;e, reflects a broader systemic issue that acr e:rsely affects workers' rights and job security. n the private sector, the rise of the gig econom/ has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of beneft;, job security, and fair treatment. Such practi(⁽ s, have been criticized For exploiting workers a I J undermining Iabour standards. Government institl lions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairrt s;s and justice, bear an even greater responsibilit) t.o avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse cf temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the det imental trends observed in the gig economy bu also sets a concerning precedent that can erode p ublic trust in governmental operations.

¶92

It is a disconcerting reality t tat temporary employees, particularly in governm€.tt institutions, often face multifaceted forms of ext oitation. While the foundational purpose of temporar 1 contracts may have been to address short-term or : easonal needs,

ry/'

SN,J vip )61 16 2022

they have increasingly become a^{mechanismlo 2024} SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term^obligations owed to employees. These^{practices manifestin} several ways:

¶97

. Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: E olovees enqaqed for work that is essential,^{rcu rfl no,} and inteo ra! to the func^{tionino of an in} itution are often labelled as "temoora rv" or "co ntractua 1," even^when t^{heir roles mirror} those of reqular emolovees. Such m isclassif ication deorives workers of the dionitv, securitv, and benefits^that reoular m lo ee ntitled es ite rf rmtn adenti ca I tasks.

¶98

. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause^{or notice,as seen} in the present case. This^{practiceunderminesthe} principles of natural^justice and subjects workers^{to a} state oF constant insecurity.^{regardlessof the quality} or duration of their service.^{.Lack of Career} Progression: Temporary employees often^find themselves excluded from opportunities^{for skill} development,^promotions, or^{incremental pay raises.} They remain stagnant in their^{roles, creating a} systemic disparity between them^{and their regular} counterparts, despite their^{contributions being} equally significant.

¶99

. Using Outsourcing as a Shieid: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing^{roles performed by} temporary employees,^{effectivelyreplacingone set} of exploited workers with^{another.This practicenot} only^perpetuates exploitation^{but also demonstrates} a deliberate effort to^{bypass the obligationto offer} regular employment.

¶100

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied^{fundamental beneFits} such as^{pension, provident fund, health insurance,} and paid leave, even^{when their tenurespans}

¶101

¶102

SN,J !p- 261 l6 2022

¶103

decades. This lack of social securit) subjects them and their families to undue hardslr t, especially in cases of illness, retirement, )r unforeseen circu msta nces. "

¶104

The High Court did acknowledgo :ee Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminatior r . Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily w;r, (-.s with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regr,: tably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appella n : Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still ir r,:ertain sta tu s. While the High Court recognized the imlr )rtance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizati rn, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meanirl lful^{back wages} commensurate with the degree of stir utory violation evident on record.

¶105

L7. In light of these considerations, he Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Work I ren stands in violation of the most basic labour law prin ( ples. Once it is established that their services were ter a rinated^r,vithout adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of tht l_J.P. Ind ustria I Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev we I n a ed in esse ntial oerennial duties. hese worI els_ean!!ot_bC releoated to oeroetual unc rtaintv. \I hflc-lerecrrE of municipal budqet and corr t_.1 rliance with recru itm e nt rU les merit con sid eI atio n. ;uch concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statut c ry obliqations ne ate crrr riteh le entif lpttia r ts, Indeed bureaucratic limitations can not trumD - -hc-lesitlnstc

#ili&i-r-?ild

SN,J \vp 26t16 2022

rlo htsof workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto re ular roles for an extended period.

¶111

1 a The tmrtuon ed order of the Hi o h Cou rt- to the n^{tf harr} confine the A rtellant Workmen in fr rfr r rp dailv-waqe enqaqement without c u ity or meaninqful back wa^qes, is herebv set ith the followino d i rections:

¶112

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

¶113

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of a sence (from the date of termination until actual reanstatement) shall be counted for continuitv of service and all con seo u e ntia I ben ts such as senioritv and elioibilitv for Dromotions, if anv.

¶114

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50c/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their relnstatement.

¶115

IV. The ResDo ndent E ]) over is directed to initiate a fair and tra nsDarent Drocess for

SN.J !,p 26t 16-2022

remonulth f s lztfrom the e dateof n reinorl il,l atement, nenwi hindulvtx o nsideri ef ct ha the !. t e rfor ed Deren nial munici DAtd uties a kir rm en p ts. In assessinq re ulr I 'azatio n, the Em Dlover sha ll not rmDOSe I ca onal or ro ur rt tar a lr! t uch reo utrements w re never AII rl ed to th A lan Work en or to tr l..l Ia rlv sit at e ar m lo es e st. fo the exte t a an lo edv ca cte for sui hdu ies exi r ar r UI d e es d t l molover shall e ite lln ar ad tn! riI :ive orocesses en u th se on tim e ! ee ar n lndefin itelvretain edon dailv wa(I _rs contra rv to statu orv and eq ita le no rms, 19. 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.,,

¶120

L2. h x u ln n re rt(:, I in( 20L71 1 u rem c rt a 48 n of Pun b and others vs Jaqiit sinqh and others atParas 54 and i su as 1 of th sai n b rv a l nder:

¶121

"54 "The Futt Bench of the High Court, v,t ite adjudicating upon the above controver:y h?d^-conctudid, itlut te_porury employees were not entitled to tne miniiiiZt iJ ,ugrtu, puy_ scale, merely for the reason, that the urtinifi,, iarried on by l1:!.y:.y:y"^{a,nd regutar emptoyees were siiiklr r}he rutt bench noweverl made two exceDtions. Temporary "i, ,,|"ur, wno fett in either of the two exceotions, were hetd entrl zd to wages at t!::,::!:* of the.pay-scatg !.r1wn W ,Zs;;', i,itproyees. rne exc.epttons .recorded by the full bench of ;he hi ,t1,Court ;n the tmpugned judgment are extracted hereunder:_

SN,J !,0 261 l6 2022

"(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 oppoftunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.

¶127

(2) But if dailv waoe ad hoc or contractual aDDointees are not aDpointed asainst reqular sanctioned Dosts and their services are availed continu I w Stafe Government or its instru mentalities for a sufficient lgnq^period i.e. for 70 vears, such dailv waqers, ad hoc or contractual aoDointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reqular Dav scale without anv allowances on the assumDtion that work of perennial nature is available and havinq worked for <rteh lana nariad r\f tir',F an anttitahla riaht i< created in such category of^persons. Their claim for reoularization, if anv, ma y have to be considered separatelv in terms of lesallv^permissible scheme,

¶128

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

¶129

The iudqment of the Aoex Court reported in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v

¶130

M.L.Kesari and others, in^{particular, paras} 4 to 9 reads as u nder:

¶131

The decision in State of Karnataka v, Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006^(reoorted in 2006 G) SCC 1). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of^jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,

L {

'1&#

I I tt

SN.J wp 26116,2022

regularizationr or permanent continuance unless t.e recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in \erms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts mLs ' be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly witl the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its in trumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita:l the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. Tt) ; Court fu rther held that a temporary, contractual, casual ( t a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be nl 'de^permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the rel= rant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitLl on. This Court however made one exception to the above pc tition and the same is extracted below :

¶139

¶140

"53. One asaect needs to be clarified. lbcreaay-bc cases where irreoular ao intments (not illesal aDDointm errts) as exDlain in S.V. _ Narayanaooa 7967 7 a R.Ar. , ra [7972 (1) scc 4091 and B.N. Nao,arai.an 17979^'4) SCc soTl and referred to in para 75 above, of: lulv oualified oersons in dulv sanctioned vacant po:;_ s mioht have been ma e and the emolo s have ued to work for ten vears or more but without the rvention of th ,t of tribunals. The ouestion of reoula tion of tlt t services of such em lovees mav ha to be c tnsidered on merits in the liqht of the orincioles :;1 tttled by this Court in he cases abovereferred to a r d-!n-tbe-Ish! of th,s Tudoment. In that context. he Union India, the State Go rnments _ - and their i n stru menta I ities shou Ld take steps f() reau la tze as a one-time measure, the services of si! h rre ularl aooointed. who have worked for ten t eA1s__AL_m.a.te in dulv sanctioned oosts but not u rt ler cover of orders of the courts or o tribuna rc and should further ensure that reoular recr L Ltt!1cats---are 'aken ose ( tioned Dosts that require to be filled uD, tn -ielEes__whcre temDorarv emDlo or dailv Waql z's are beinq now emDlo ved. The Drocess must be .et in n withi six months from this te.....

¶141

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

SN,J . p 26t t6,2022

(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 tribunat. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have emptoyed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶146

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegat, 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 qualifjcations 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.

¶147

(iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon the concerned Governm nt or insttumentalitv. to take steDs to ularize th softh ar.T a emDloyees w had serued for more than ten vears hout the ben I rotection of rim orders courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Uma devi, directed that guch one-time measure must be set in motion within six m onths from the date of its decision (rendered o 70.4.2006).

¶148

The term^'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of alt 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.

¶149

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casua I 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 instru menta 1ities undertook the

SN,J rvp 26116 2022

one-time exercise excluding several^et tployees from consideration either on the^ground that their^cz,: e,s were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such cit aumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considerecl ;n terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose heir right to be considered for regularization, merely becats =^{the one-time} exercise was completed without considerine their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in^pe r t 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should t.t nsider all dailywage/adhoc/those employees who had put ;n 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 with: tt availing the protection of any interim orders of courts ol lribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in ter ns of para 5j of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sonl , employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umattr t,i, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as t continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise t,ill be concluded only when all the employees who are entitlea 'o be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so consider :d,

¶155

The obiect behind the said direatiah _ in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have out in more than ten years of cott: ,Jlu.ogq_EeIvlce without the^protection of any interim orc\ rs of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision i4 Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularizat_ on in view of their lonq service. Second ,s to en: ure that the deDa rtments / instru mentalities do not I erDetuate the practice of emolovinq Dersons on lailv-wase/adboeleasua! for lonq^periods and th 7 n oeriodicallv reqularize them on the^qround that thev I ave served for more than ten vears, therebv defeatino tlt_t constitutional or statqtolv provisions relatinq to r=:ruitment and apoointment. The true effect of the direltion is that all oersons who have worked for more than ien vears as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umad' 2_ /i) without the orotection of anv interim order of anv coult_ or tribunal. ,n acant ossessrn the , ite t alification, are enti ed to be considered for reoularizatio, t. The fact that the emplover has not undertaken su < h exercise of reoularization within six months of l 'I e decision in Umadevi or tha t such exercise was una'< rtaken onlv in reoard to a limited few, will not a itle such emolovees, the ridh to be considered fctt reqularization

SN.J wp 26116 2022

in terms of the above direct ions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

¶160

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

¶161

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed 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 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 regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶162

L4. In the iudoment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinoh and others v. State ofP untab reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made avaalable. It held that the mere fact

SN,J wp 2{tl 16 2022

that wages were^paid by the Bank did^{r I} rt render the appellants 'employees' of those^Banllr r since the appointment was made by the State art I disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that tft, : creation of a cadre or sanctioning of^posts for a cadrt is a matter exclusively within the authority of the^Sta te, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but⁽ hose to make appointments of persons creating contractua I relationship, its action is arbitrary. It a.l o refused to accept the defence that there were no sal^{gtiSn-ei-J2osts} and so there was iustification for the S! ate-le-utllisc services of Ia roe numbe ro f TTE()D e like the appellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned Dosts d,l not fall from I heaven" and that the State has to crea e them by a conscious choice on the bas is of some ratio 1 rl assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi. it held that he appella nts before them were not arbitrarilv chose 1 . their initial apDointment was not an 'irreqular' aDDoinl:r nent as it had been made in accordance with the statu't lry Drocedure prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, a nd the State ca nnot tre heard to av that thev are not _ entitled to be

¶167

¶168

SN,J .\p_26t t6 2022

¶169

absorbed into the services of the State on Dermanent basis as. accordinq to it, therr aDDo intments were purelv tem Dora r and not aoainst anv sanctioned Dosts created bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Um adeva cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the covernment of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a oractice incon sistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Con n,

¶170

The iudqment of the pex Court report 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Munic oal Corooration Reo. bV its Commissioner. Nellore District, Andhra Pra esh and others, in Darticular DarasTandSreads as under:

¶171

(7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reasonino doDted by the Hiqh Court The riqht of the aooellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 The aooellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drio r to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of G.O a The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶172

B. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the

SN,J wp_26116 2022

circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifylr,t the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' servi: ::; be regularised with effect from the date of their completin I their five year continuous service as was laid down by thi:; Court in District Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Sinqn & Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480.

¶178

In Amarkan R IV f Bih rr c rted^(2O15 )8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that^'Ihe objective behind the exception carved out in this cas(: was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are arregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmer ts, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensurl L securitv of emplovment of those persons who had serv he State Government and their instrumentalities for nore than ten vears". In that case, emplovee was workir[ L for 29 vea rs. This dectston a DDroves earlier view _:_xpressedⁱⁿ M. L.Kesari extracted above.

¶179

L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Pras I I reported in (20L4) 7 SCC 223. samilar view was 'aken bv the Suo reme Court and it was held as follows :

¶180

"47..,. In view of t e cateoorical findinrt -al-!ast--en-!he relevant contentious issue that the resoott lent emplovees have continued in their servi for mor= than 70 vears continuouslv therefore. the al orincio I t laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case ( te of Karn a taka v Umadevi (2OO6) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCc (L&S) 731 at o_ tra 53 squarelv aDDlies to the Dresent cases. The Divisic n Bench of the

¶181

¶182

SN'--J wp 261t6._2022

¶183

Hioh Court has riohtlv eld that the resDondent em Dlo vees are entitI, ed for t e relie the same cannot he interfered with bv this Court."

¶184

The Judgment of this Court dated 06.t2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 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.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2O24.

¶185

The iudqment of the ADex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reDorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3959 and in particular Dara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶186

"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 wher the Government or a ubli a h rt has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred upon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Go ment or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consid ration.

SN.J wP _26116 2022

l I l l . j

In all such cases, the High Court musl lssue a writ of mandamus and glve directions to compel terformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public uthority.,,

¶191

The Divis ion Ben ch of this Court in ts .Iudqment dated 10.06.2O13 oas sed in W.A .Nos.782 of !O 1 O and 854 of 2012 while uoholdi nq the l udqmen dat,: I 8.O 2 10 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.t! t 4g_gl2oeg

¶192

observed as u nder; -

¶193

"Further, it is manifest from the material on -3cord that the services of the similarly placed persons who apt 'oached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporz .ion a lso issued various office orders/circu la rs dated 20.12.1.!rl lt, lt.o9.7992, 06.10.2OO7 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for r rrl u la rizatio n of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seer hat Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice t y any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factua scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents fo. ! uch a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is n: .hing but unfair Iabour practice attracting the provisions of Se,:, ion 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying r n the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responrlr rrts are e ntitled to regularization as directed in the impugne(l r>rders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects )1'the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our ronsidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.,

¶194

2L, ThE Divisio n Benc of this Courtin I Jud ent dated 19 .o9.2017 oassed in W.P.N 0.272'. ,7 of 2017 !^{and para} lg observed as under:-

SN,J !vP_261 l6 2022

"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 time the 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 regularizatron and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to one-time public posts, consciously ordered for a bso rption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O: Ms. No.212, daled 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the^judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la riza tio n/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994 don ot whittle dorarn the r ridth and the iudqment in Manjula Bashini's case^(suora), does not I^r^r6i +ha +rr i or-f o of the directions s<rrad lrrr +lra Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment ln Uma Devi's case^(s u D ra) It is therefore not ncrmiqsihle for the resDondents to take shelter under Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to t h i n r who have adm^il-ta/lrr c-ficfi6.l iha rl rl wn in Para No.53 of the Devi's case^(suora ).

¶199

For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.20L7, in OA No.1442 of 2074 , on the file oF the Tribunal is set aside and the writ Detition is allowed with the direction to the resDondents to consider req la risation of the services of n a ainst the exi t r ln hem sub ect to thei the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the^I U^domentin Uma Devi's case^(suDra). Thi Drocess must be comoleted within two months from the date of receiot of a coov of this order."

¶200

Division Bench of this Court in i n

¶201

dated 2L.O4.2O2O Dassed in LA.Nos.1 of ZO2O in 1 of 2O19

¶202

¶203

SN.J ttp 26116 -2022

¶204

and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reported in 2O O(4)ALD Daqe

¶205

379 at oaras 45. 48 and oa ra 50 observed a! -u-n-de[:-

¶206

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners havc Lreen working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in alrr( st (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimL r I time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuouslT^,nrorking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till ( ate.

¶207

It is not known whv th lst resE⁽ ndent as not the Uma D vi' ;5e^(supra), as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) af d undertaken a one-time exercise of DreDari o the lisl - -sI--daily--]^,asc emDlovees who had worked for more tha r ten⁽¹ ) vears without the interventi on of the Co rts an( !^Tribunals as on 10.4.2005 and subiect them to a orocess y lrification as to whether thev are workino aoainst va ( ant posts and oossess requisite qualifications for the i2 2sts, and if so, reoulariz e their servrces.

¶208

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowe < ;^{the impugned} orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st rer rondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of iervices on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrar) and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitutio of India; the resoonde ts are directed to reoularize or I one-time basis ' servi the d J the^petitioners comD lete 10 vears of service on da ilv y ages from the initial dates of the ir aooointment . But, t h *'v shall not be entitled toI anv monetarv relief. The said r (erctse shall be done within two (2) weeks f m the d:ri e of receiDt of cooy of the order."

¶209

This Cou rt o D INes thatinth ED re! ;( !nt case, the resDondents failed to discharoe their dut/ i_Elxa!xI!!ng the reouest of the Detitioner r rec 1l rla rizataon of petition er's services, who is wo rkinq as full time sweeDer an d J rther to consider his reo uest to treat he tem DOra rv

SN,J wp 26IL6_2022

..,,,

servt ceof the Detit oner rn t elast o rad e Dost of full ttme swee nerasr ular one for all D urooses trv orantino last qrade Dav with Deriodical increment revised from time to e om the date of a ointment of the t: n r accordance to law.

¶215

This Court ooines that oetitioner is entitled for consideration of Detitioner s case for^qrant of the relief as r ln h t of the observations of the Aoex Court in various iudoments f t r and ex ra dab v nd th vtew t h Division Bench of this Court in the Judqments referred to and extracted above.

¶216

Takinq into consideration:-

¶217

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

¶218

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

SN.J Np 26116 2022

i)(2o20) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2O1O(9) SCC247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2O1s) I SCC 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 Scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶223

d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2Ol. ) and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment datr: I 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.f o.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶224

e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 29'.^I (referred to and extracted above),

¶225

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in . of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extre cted above).

III

SN,J \p 26t t6 2022

i I I lr

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

¶232

The Wri P ition ts llo ed the eti ron r ts rec d -fo he im of he titio erf r r ula iza nof 10n s s an al th claim th eti oner to ea he m a ervr es th titi er in the I st ad ost fSw e r sr ul r one or all ur se f ntan las ra a ith efl dical tn reme nts revrsed fro time to time from the date of AD oantment of the etiti ner and all nseouen ial benefits dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents tn su DOrtofo etitioner's case asD ut-forth in the Dresent wrl eti on ithi a rto fo e o1 we kfr h date of receipt of coov of the order and the resoondents sh lex mtn an con der he me na ord ce law ln n r ith rtn les fn ral usti b f vidin ano rtun i son I heari the titio er ter s or ers ss b he rem c rti Um Dev 'sc er orte in2 6 4 ccP 1 h ud me sed nW P.N 4377 of 2007 at I 2 10 or ed n2 11 1 ALD Pa 234 and

i2.

SN.J \p 20lr6 2022

confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O O6.2O13, and a lso as Der Division Benc h Jud ment of thi ; Court dated 19.O9.2 O17 oassed in W.P.No. 27217 of 2O,l 7 reported in 2018(2)ALD Daoe 282 and also the D i ri Be nch Judqment of this Court dated 2L.O4.20 2 O^passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.ll lO57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O( 4 )ALD oaqe 379 which d attained tna li within od of four 4 w the date of recer Dt of a coov of this order, dultkin into consideration the observations and the larar laid down by the Aoex Court in the various iudoments (rg Ierred to and racted above din a rti r No.53 of the iudqment of the ADex Court in the cas of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and dulv conrr 0.s-[.!-ce!e__the decision to the petitioner. However, ther E shall be no order as to costs,

¶237

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin(l in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶238

To,

¶239

Sd/.^,.C.SULEKHA DEVI .--.. fR$r^{;r4rylBEqs.rRA"R} //TRUE COPY// { \t .=.r,o* oFFrcER One fair copy to THE HON,BLE MRS. JUSTICE Sttder nUtNANDA (For Her Lordship,s Kind perusal)

¶240

'l . 1'1 L R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of rndia, Ministry of Law J rstice and company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶241

¶242

The^{Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, HighCourt} Buildings, Hyderabad

¶243

The Principal^{Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, TelanganaSecretariat,} T.S.,Hyderabad.

¶244

The Principal^{Secretary, Finance and Planning Department,Govt- of} Telangana,^{Telangana Secretariat, T S,Hyderabad.}

¶245

The District^{Collector (Panchayat),and Chairmanof MinimumWages} Committee and^{District Selection Committee, SuryapetDistrict.}

¶246

The Chief Executive^{Oflicer, Zllla Praja Parishad, Suryapet District} 8. The Mandal^{DevelopmentOfficer, Mandal PrajaParishad,tvleliaCheruvu} tvlandal, SuryaPet^District.

¶247