Allowed

Shaik Lal Sahab v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC4 Aug 2025WP/26125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A temporary sweeper engaged on compassionate grounds in 2002 sought regularization and last grade pay benefits after twenty years of continuous service. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents including Umadevi, Kesari, Jaggo and Shripal and prior Division Bench orders, held the petitioner entitled to consideration for regularization and directed the respondents to examine his claim.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine petitioner's regularization claim and pass appropriate orders within four weeks per para 53 of Uma Devi, considering cited precedents, and communicate the decision; no

Shaik Lal Sahab Vs The State of Telangana and 4… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

i':ffi

¶2

l32s2l

¶3

...IN ..,-' THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

MONDAY,^{THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLINANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO:26 125 0F 2022}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shaik Lal Sahab,^S/o Nabi Sahab, aoed about 42 Years,^Workingas Temporary^SweePer' UPS. Vepala ttt-aOirarn.^Melia - Cheruvu Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The State^{of Telangana,rep' by its Principal.Secretary'Panchayathra'i} ' odoJrt"i6"i tetan6ana' secret-arbt' Hvderabad

¶13

1. il53uG1;i ili;ffi^{#, ;;. "of i['Friii'orrsecretary.F i nanceand, Plennins} DeoartmenL^{aovt. o?'i?ran'gan'a'Telangina Secreta nat' Hyderabad'}

¶14

'$i^U*+tln-atUlria"t'lLl"",r:s,1,"#iiEi:ffi cer j'r','"'iib-i;;'"offi

¶15

t:lR:n:lrS"f Mandal, SuryapetDistrict. ':"jiisH3ff

¶16

...RES'ONDENTS "3:'"T:l#:,1El,i'Jnx

¶17

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith 'the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order^{or direction more particularly one in the natureor Writ of} Mandamus to^{direc-t the respondentsto treat the services of the petitioner as} reg ular one in^{the last grade post for continuously workrngtill date in temporary} -€stablishment^{on compassionategrounds{rsm04*.-} o1-zoo2 nor^{regurarizinghis services even on compretion of 20 rong years servlc€} by not extending^{the last grade paybenefitswith periodical increments from time} totimewitheffectfromo44l-2oo2totilldatefromtimetotimewitharrearsasper GoMs.No.68Tdated03.l0.lgTTtotilldateiShighlyunlustandunfairasper Articb14.16,21,39(d)'43and300(A)ofConstitutionoflndiabysubjecting petitioner for exploitative^{enslavementdue to his helpless conditionsof poverty'} poor social, economical^{and politicalbackgroundby taking rt as advantage by the}

¶18

respondents in continuing him on pittance wages of Rs. 1623/- p.m. and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioner in the rast grade post of sweeper as regular one for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodicar increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 20 rong years without any service progress with 100 percentage compensation on arrears of pay as per the principre raid by the Hon,bre supreme court in c.A. No. 3416 - 344s of 2olo rlated 19-02-2019 in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar chand (2019 3 ALD sc 32) and in the case of prem singh Vs. state of Up and Batch cases (reported in 2019 10 scc s.t6 in paras 36 and 37). in the case of Netram Sahu vs. state of chattisgarh and Anr. in civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-2018, foflowed by DB orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in wp No. 267gg of 2017 dared 10-0g-2017 (DB) with cost by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Hon,ble Apex Court under Articte 141 of our Constitution.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2O22

¶20

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner provided on compassionate grounds vide proc. No. B/3g1/2g01lMp dated 04-01-2002 by 5th respondent rn temporary post of sweeper as per Go Ms. No. 687 dated 03_10_ 1977 as regurar one from the date of appointment i.e. from o4-o1-2o02 in the rast grade post forthwith by paying last grade time scale benefits to the petitroner wrth periodical rncrements revised from time to time.

¶21

ounsel Jorlhe Petitioner: SRICIj.GANES t{ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: Gp FOR SERIVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 A S: SRI FRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR MPP ZPP

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

SNJ, wp _26125 _2022

¶25

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETTTTON No.26125 OF 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

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

¶29

2 The oetitioner aDDroa ched the Court seek noDraver as under:

¶30

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature or Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 04-01-2002 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 04-01-2002 to till date from time to time with arrears as per GO Ms. No. 687 dated 03-10-1977 to till date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article 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

SNJ, wp 26125_2022

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 grade post of sweeper as regular one for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increment revised From time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 20 long years without any service progress with 100 7o compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in c.A. No. 3416 - 3445 0f 2010 dated 19-02-2019 in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of^prem Singh Vs. State of Up and Batch cases (reported in 2019 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37), in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-2018, followed by DB Orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in Wp No. 26788 of 2017 dated 10-08-2017 (DB) with cost by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass.....',

¶35

Learned counsel aooearinoon ehalf of the oetitioner olacinq reliance on the avermen ts made i the affidavit filed in s u DDort of the oresen t writ oetition e tntn ln a rti to h ervt nd b petitio ner with the resoond nts herein for more than a decade conte nds that he oetiti ner is e titled fo the relie as oraved for in theoresent writ oetition.

¶36

PERUS ED THE RECORD:-

¶37

DI USSIO NANDC ONCLUSION:-

¶38

¶39

SNJ, wp_26t25 2022

¶40

4, Learned counsel aDDea rtnoonb half of the oetitioner submits that the subiect issue in the oresent case is souarety covered bv the order of this^Court-dated o8.09.2 O1O oassed i W.P.No-24 37 of 2OO7 teoorted an 2011( 1) LD. Paoe 234 as confi rmed in W.A. o.782^oJ 2010. da 10.06.2013 and also order. dated 19.O9.20L7 bassed in W.P.No.272 L7 of 2Or7 re rted in 2O18 2I ALD Paqe 2 2 and also the order- dated^{2 1} -o4.2^{O2O oassed in} W.P.No .23(J57 of 2O19 reoorted ln^2o2,J( 4^{) ALD Pa(Ie379.}

¶41

Lear ed ln u o tf t resoond ent No.4 submits thatt e orievance of the ner as h nth t P had been ddressed the resoo ndents hererna s on da e a nd therefo re, the oetition er cannot^co D a tn inactaon on the oart of resoondents herein in consid^e rl^{no the qrievance of} ner an e fas r e rb t etit tn he res n t r nt and o Mandamu scanbei ued aoai^ns tt he resoond ents hereunderass ltd ht frrr nd tha n t i.t ner m b^e dire d to out-forth the tioner's rteva nce as outforth in the oresent Writ P^etit ion^bv avofad tailed reDre ntation t the res ndents h re tn and uDon

) J

SNJ. w^26t252022

et t aid re tio t e t wo !d o si er th m ln d c wr tna

¶46

ason btED riod.

¶47

6 e n d un la ea n o b al t ta er d esn di u e e ar su mt st a I rn d n tn n el on of h de

¶48

No.4

¶49

Th A e c u tn h u m n n o o s inP mSi hv ta P a an e ara 36 lda u r

¶50

"36. There are some of the em ployees who have not been regularized in spite of havinI rendered the services for 30_ 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment not against any pa rticu la r pro]ect, their services ought to have been regulanzed und er the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. rh is 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 regula rized of such em ployees. 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 cons ideration of regulariz ation as others have been regularized ,wed irect that their services be treated as a regular one. Ho wever, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to ct aiming any dues of difference rn wages had they been c ontin ued in service regularl before attaining the age of entitled to receive superannuation. They shall be r th r ul rthe pentisron as n iF thea Y have retired e d h e t

¶51

¶52

SNJ, wpJ6l25]O22

¶53

the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for ouroose of oension."

¶54

The Aoex Court in the seof Dha rwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 199O(^'t scCPaoe 395 laid orinciole that the Sta should notk eeD a Derson in te mDorarv or adhoc service for lono oeriod and have to treat such Dersons as reqular one.

¶55

rn P r N 3 of the m h A in the State of Karnata ka and ot hers Vs. Um adevi, dated 10.o4.2006 orted is extracted tn⁽ 2006)4SCC1

¶56

hereunder:-

¶57

"53 one asD^{ect naadc to ]ra cl} a^rified- harc mav tre cases where irre(Iulara DDointments^(not illeoal aDooantmen ) as ernlained in s.v. Naravanaooa 11967⁽¹⁾ SCR 1281, R.N. Naniundaopa 11972⁽¹⁾ Cfi dfl(ll r n B tl lfaar:ria n t10ao I 4\ saa <n 7¹ n 'I referre n to in r 1 a t o n tifi 6a rCon C an ,1.^r lv ct nrj n n+ 6rtclc llt h⁺ h been made and the emll ovees have continued to work for ten vears or mo re but without the intervention of orders of he coults or of I bu nals. The ou to n of reou atlza I .l n oft he se nfl ofsuch emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of th e D nnc ft les eftlad hv this Corrrt tn the cases abovereferre d toa nd in the lioht of this iudqment. In that context- thEUnion of In^{dia. the} State Governments a nd their instrum ntalities it h ul.l take strArrrc ja raattlztiza a s r lir'tA-t am measure, the servi ces of such irreoularl v aooointed,

¶58

¶59

SNJ. w_26125_2022

¶60

ho hav w r d or en ea re n sa ncti on DOsts ut otu nder coverofo rders ofthe u or f a an sh uld u er n re at la r rul me ts eun en to I o v sa n sts e o f le ca e h e m r or at w e e !n n m o e ss u b t io wt hin si nth fr s

¶61

e u m nt t A u d o 2 4 di 2 2 s t 2 Ja ni s nt I da a h nd h t] a a r N s 2 3 4 6 27 n 2 e ra

¶62

hereunder:

¶63

"1-2., Des.pite being labelled as ,,part_time workers." the appellants perform[J' tn"r" essential tasks on a daily arra continrrous basis over extensive periods, ."ngi.r;"irorn over a decade to nearly two decaie"l rnui, engalrement was not sporadic or temporary in T.tlr.u,^{instead, it was recurrent,} regular, and akin to the responsibitities 'typicaf ty associated with sanctioned posts. l\lo'.Lor"., the respondents did n"t "ig"j"- .ri ian.. personnel for these task! during the 119llants..^{tenure,underscorinj'} th" lndispensable nature of their work.

¶64

Th cl mb re d ts ha n r lar a s er I The recurring nature oF these duties necessitates their class ification as regular posts irrespective of how their in itial engagements we re labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the

¶65

¶66

SNJ, wp_26125 ]022

¶67

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.

¶68

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 hiohliohts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassif cattons and ensurino that workers receive fair treatment.

¶69

While the judgment in Uma Devi^(supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees.^This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" aPPointments. It cat ooricallv held that emolovees in irrequla r aooointments who were en^{aoed in} dulv sancti on ed oosts and had served ntinuousl for mor a n houl n be con idered for r u a flz ation as a one-

)

SNJ, \rp-26125 2022

time measure, However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Goveinment departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi ( supra) to argue that no vested right to reg ula rization exists for temporary employees overlooki ng the judgment's exp licit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. T s cti ti ti s he m t's rt d o el weaoonizino itaq ainst emolovees who have er s sa ver decades.

¶74

In light of these considcrations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers bn 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 dmployee 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 aligni with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶75

2A. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Trib-unal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:

¶76

SNJ, w^26t25_022

¶77

¶78

i. The termination orders dated 27 .LO.2OLB are quashed ;

¶79

ll. The a DDellants shall be taken nd rthwith and t Glr rv I'lrG ular^icad farf hrrrith However, the aooellants shall not be entitled to oecuniarv any benefits/back waqes for the Derlod they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of selyices for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their lost: retiral benefits."

¶80

11, The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 31-01.2025 reDorted in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in oarticular, the relevant Dara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶81

*15. It is manifest that the Aooellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their servaces over several years, sometimes sDannrno more th n a decade. Even if certaan muster rolls were not oroduced in ful!, the Emolover's failure t turnish such recordsti n s n d inference under well-established labour rt r dence. In bo rl d I it -w f ntra a ments circumstances where the work is oermanent in M r n le who fu onqolnq mu tctDal reouirements vear after vear cannot be dismissed su mmarilv as d tsoensable,

)

SNJ. wp 26125 2022

Da rticu Iarly in the absen ofaoe nuine contractor aoreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite^{.'temporary,,} employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of fndia in the Following paragraphs:

¶86

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

¶87

It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obtigations owed to employees. These practices maniiest in several ways:

¶88

a tsuse "Tem orarv" Labels: Emol ovees n a for w th e ial rr! nd in ral efu ntn an titu are often labelled as "tem orarv" or co tractua!," eve when their roles mtrror those of reoular emolov s. Such

¶89

¶90

SNJ, w_26125²⁰²²

¶91

miscl ssification deorives workers of the diqnitv. securitv, and benefits that reoular emolo^yees are e titled to. desDate Derforminq identi I tasks.

¶92

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

¶93

o Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

¶94

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circu msta nces. "

¶95

The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were

¶96

¶97

SNJ, \tp _26125 _2022

¶98

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.

¶99

L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enoa ed in essential, oerennial duties. th se work rs cann tbe releo ated to oerDetual u certa intv. While co ncerns of municio al budoet and comolian ce with recrui ent rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve he Emolover of stat torv oblio ations or neqate eouitable entitlements. In deed, bure ucratic li itations nnot trum D the leoitimate rlohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto requ lar roles for an extended oeriod.

¶100

The imouo ed order of the Hioh Court, to the exte t thev confine the AoDellant Workmen to future dait -waoe enoaoeme nt without conttnul or mea inqful bac waoes, as herebv s aside with the foll wtn to

¶101

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,

¶102

¶103

SNJ, wp-26125:2022

¶104

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.

¶105

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 e tire oeriod of a s^e nce^(from the^{date of} fc rmtn 2 ro^{nr rnti! ral-rrrl} tn^c+alaiia n^tl rchrll ha n d of nd conseou ential benefits, such as senio^{itY and} eliqibilitv for o motions, if anY.

¶106

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

¶107

IV. The Resoondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and tra nsoarent Drocess for reoularizin oth eAooell nt Workmen withiⁿ slx I m the da rei nst nt du cons:de no the fact th t thev have^oerformed n td kin rman n6stc In EitrC c rn L tl ula^l.izaj aln t^ha Emolo r shall noti tlose educati nal or D ural cri rta retroa ct velv at such reouarements were never apDlied to^the Aooella t Workmen or to similarlv situated lar e a the that sanctioned vacancies for such^{duties exist} or are uired, the Resoondent Emolo er shall exDedi all necessarv d m inistrative orocesses to ensure these lonoti me emolovees are^not indefi itelv retained on dailv waoes contrarv to statutorv and eouitable norms.

¶108

¶109

SNJ, !p_26125 2022

¶110

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.,,

¶111

L2. The ADexCourt rna udo ent reDo rted !n oL7 1 r me ou c es 48 n P n an o h rs v Ja it tn an o e tP 4 n b- as

¶112

(t )( 2)(3), of the said tudqme nt ob e as under:

¶113

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controv.erly h1d^-concluded, that temporary employees were not entitted to the minimu^ of in" regutar pay_ scare, merery for the reasont that the activitiei carried on by da-ily-wagers a.nd regurar emproyees w.r. tiiitir. The futt bench ?:*^1r_"a Ta.le^{two exceptions. Temporary employees, who} feil ,::,y,ui ot the -two exceptions, were held entitted to wages at rne mtntmum of the pay-s.cal9 drawn by regular emptoyeei. rne exceptions recorded by the fufi bench of ine uign coutt in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:_^-

¶114

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractuat appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process'basea upiit fairness and equality of opportunity. to all other etigibte candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of tne reguiai - jay scate from the date of engagement.

¶115

(2) aut if dailv waoers, dh or con trac al a oi ee a n , u sanctioned Dosts and t 'Ir are availed continuo arslv, th I b th Governmen or its in lities for a SUffic t I, iod i. 7 e ad h or con tn all ti t tn, u o e u n allowa nces on the a umD tion that rk of DerennElna ture tsa ilable andh vtnd wor,ked for s ch on e d u b n t t c ul, a on an ha n e s ta I , I sof a le e

¶116

¶117

SNJ, w _26125 _2022

¶118

(3) In the evenL 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."

¶119

The iudqment of the Aoex Court reDorted in 2O1O(9) S,CC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v

¶120

M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as under:

¶121

The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 7O.4.2006^(reoorted in 2 U) 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, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court 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 adherence of Atticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

¶122

"53. One asaect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular apoointments^(not illegal aoDointmenB) as exolai, ed ,n S.V. NaravanaDDa 17967⁽⁷⁾ SCR 7281- R.N. Naniundaooa f7972⁽⁷¹ SCC 4O9l and B.N, Nagaraian 17979⁽⁴⁾ SCC 5O7l and referted to in oara 75 above. of dulv oualified oercons in dulv sanctioned vacant oosts mioht have been made and the emo vees have continued to rtarL lat lan t wit.^hattj jho

¶123

¶124

SN',, wp_26125_2022

¶125

,n rven nof rders of the cou ot of tribu nals. suce'h em loveenof mavu have to bef cons ono ert tn eli of tt I urt i, th case bo ,n h o this u ent. n o nd, e r I m tes e a tI u f rla a ha n , u tion et vet o u a u rth e SU r n underta nto fiil ose vaca fsa edo ts at re u n e m w d n with ,n sixmo nths from this te.

¶126

"5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the generar principres against ' regurarization, enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions aie futfi ed :

¶127

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or llorg^{in dulysanctionedpost without the benefit} or^protection of th.e interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its .instru mentality should have employed the emptoyee and continued him in' service iotuntariiy ana continuously for more than ten years.

¶128

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be ittegal, 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 witt be considered to be ifiegit. But where the person emproyed possessed the prescribed -quatifications and was. working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irreguiar.

¶129

U ad' I du cerned Gov tn to tn ta lar e servi e lo sw n rs ou e enefi ro n m ers u or rt u s nem di, ted th such e-ti. e ,n

¶130

¶131

SNJ, \4p_26125 2022

¶132

motion within six months from the date of its decision ( rendered on 7O.4.2O06).

¶133

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

¶134

At the end of six months from the date of decisionⁱⁿ lJ madevi, cases of severa I da i ly- wage/ad -hoc/casua I emp^loyees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the onetime regularization^process. On the other hand,^some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook^the one-time exercise excluding several employees^from consideration either on the^ground that their cases^{were pending} in coufts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances,^the employees who were entitled to be considered in^{terms of Para} 53 of the decision in umadevi, will not lose their^{right to be} considered for regularization, merely because the^one-time exercise was completed without @nsidering their^{cases, or} because the six month period mentioned in^para 53^{of Umadevi} has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all^daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had^put in 70^{years of} continuous service as on 70.4,2006 without availing^the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals- If any employer had held the one-time exercise in^{terms of para 53 of} lJmadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees^who were entitled to the benefit of^para 53 of Umadevi,^{the employer} concerned shoud consider their cases also, as^{a continuation of} the one-time exercise. The one time exercise^{will be concluded} only when alt the employees who are entitled to^{be considered} in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

¶135

The obiect behind t1fr,e said direction in^{oara 53 of} Umade vi is two- fold. First is^to sure that th who have out in more than ten^wears of continuo^{'s service} tribunals,without t e before Drotection the dateof anvf ,^'nterim decision^orderc in Umadevi^of courts orwas rendered. are considered r reoularization view of thetr nd service Seaond is ansttre that thFdeDartments n strumentali sdo nof DerDe ate the

) 7" .l (

SNJ, wp 26t25_2022

L ctt of em o o a o cas I a n no il e on e un tha a a rs e u I or ta t e s, If a a o ha f oo th da of ts, ,n m v, a ,n ,m e a or u ca n e u a tio entitled to be con id, for rearulariza tion. The t e m rha no un 'h u a thi, s s I

¶140

U, ad, or a u o n a lim d w. d, s lo es. e h to la ,n of ea ove I n n d, as on m measure.

¶141

These appeats have been pending for more than four years after the decision in umadev.i. fhe" Appe;lla;; 6iA eanchayat, Gadag) has not considered the casei- oi 'lesponaents of regularization within six months of the decEjion-in ltmadevi or thereafter.

¶142

The Division Bench of the High Couft has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs Oi Jii.n, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Oiiag snoutd now undertake an exercise within six -oithr, i-iiier"t one_ time regula.rization exercise, to find out whethler t\ile are any daity wage/casual/ad-hoc employees. serving the Zita e)nchayat and,it so whether such emptoyees (includiig tni iesfonaen9) futfill the requirements mentrcned in para si or imii[ii. If they fulfitt them, their services have to be regurarized. tr-iirn an exercise has atready been undertaken oy ijnoriij ir-Li-ittirg the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because'of1he pini.iri ir in.r" iii"i, then their cases shall have to be considered in Lontinuation of the said one time exercise within three months. Ii is needtess to s_ay that if the respondents do not fulfitt the riquirements of Para 53 of llmadevi, their services need n;t- be- regutarised. If the employees who have compreted ten yeai iervice do not p:sse:s the educationat quatifications prestribed for the post, at the tim.e of their appointment, tn"y -"y- ii ionsidered for regularization in suitable lower posts. fnis'appial is disposed of accordingly.

¶143

¶144

SNJ. wp_26125_2022

¶145

L4. In the iudoment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Pun IAb reoorted in (2O13) 14 SCC El,^{the Supreme} Court considered the case of absorptaon of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also r used to accept the defence that the were no sanctioned Dosts n h r w State to u ti services of larqe number of e like the aooellants for decades. It held that "sancti oned Dosts do not fall from heaven" and that the Stat has to create them bva conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referrino to Umade the d that the a DDe ants

( {

SNJ, w]6t25²⁰²²

o th n t ar tr c n elr itial a oin en as ot 'ir ul r a tm a had n ad ln ccor n wt th d scr un r EP ce ct 861 an th ta e ca n to t a n n be bs n h serv s f h st o r n st s cco tn or th ntm nts re r I or dn ta n n an n d o c bv the state. I as eld ha e m tin m vt n om ali nc for atao b eS e r m ti s d et r e ve en t n n th e bti se orB nk n tin s a r !n st nt ith heir obli tio of ln n h he nsti ution

¶150

Th u of heA ex Cou re 2 c tn sc 97 etw enB Sri as an ot v lt M tct or n e b Co n r N r dhr Pra esh nd tn rti ar Daras7 and8reads s under:

¶151

(7) We dit ifficul oa tth rea tn o b Hi, C, en ht of hea lla n to k ula to ow fro the .O. No.2 2 dated 22.4 1994 Th t ha b tn rvrc of th first r, s onden oto to ua e f the id ,o ut even subse uen to of

¶152

¶153

SNJ, wp 26125J022

¶154

G.O. The respondent Municipality being a^statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra).^{Inspiteof 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.^.

¶155

In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of^{the above} mentioned G.O. on the^ground that the appellants^approached the Tribunat belatedty, in our opinion, is^not iustified'^{In the} circumstances, the appeat is atlowed^{modifyingthe order under} appeal by directing that the appellants' services^{be regularised} with effect from the date of their completing^{their five year} continuous service as was laid down by^{this Court in District} Cotlector/Chairperson & Others^vs. M.L.^{Singh & Ors. 2009 (8)} scc 480.

¶156

In Ama rkant Rai v State^{of Biharreoorted(2O15) 8} SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that^{'The objective} behind the exceptaon carved out in^{thas case was to permit} regularizataon of such appointment, which^{are arregular} but not illegal, and to ensure appointments,^{which are} irregular but not illegal, and toe^{sure secur tvof} m ntoft er ons wh se Sta Government and their instru entalities r more th n ten vears". In that c se, emolove^{e was wo} ino for 29 vears. This ecisron aDo ves earlier view exD din M.L.Ke sari extracted above.

¶157

L7. In State of Jarkhand v^{Kamal Prasad reoo} a in 2014) 7 SCC 223, similar vrew wa^staken the Suoreme Court and it wa s held as llows

¶158

)

¶159

¶160

SNJ, \rp _26125 _2022

¶161

f ca on I , th nt, e en tin , tr for n tinuo slv there the leoal rtncrD laid down bv ,n ma ca of o 4 3 rel to ca D o n f rt as h t I e te e e ot te h

¶162

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.p.No.276O2 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Nalgonda Distract, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.32847 oJ 2C.24.

¶163

m t t h Co in Har Kri M dir u te M ara tr nd th I re rte n R2 20 e 69 nd tc I Nos.1OO and 101 held as follows: "100. The H igh 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, r dut o d erci ow I e the ov rn or lic uth rit as ai! t exe as ron xe rse r at a ta e ar e e on f v nm t I a exer ised

¶164

¶165

SNJ, wp 26125-022

¶166

such discrettonma la fide or on trrelevant consaderation.

¶167

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."

¶168

2o. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 10.o6.20 1 3 nassed in w. A-Nos .7a2ol^{2O1O a} nda 54 of 2O12 while uoholdino the Judqment dated^O8.O9.2O10 Dassed in W.P.No.24 77 ot^{2OO7 ad C.C.No.48} 2008

¶169

observed as under:-

¶170

"Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly^{placed persons} who approached^{the law} Courts were regularized. The a^ppella nt-Corporation also^issued various office orders/circu la rs 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^{scenarioof 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 of Section^{25-T of the} ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on^{the decisions} of the Apex Court, rightly held that the^{respondents are entitled} to regularization as directed in the^{impugnedorders,as the} learned single Judge considered all the aspects^{of the matterin} detail, in the proper^perspective, which, in^{our consideredview} does not warrant interference in these appeals."

¶171

2L. The Division Bench of t is Co urt in its Judoment

¶172

dated 19.09.2017 oas^se din w. -No .272 t7o 2o t7

in 2O1 2 A 2 an

observed s under:-

SNJ. wp _26125,2022

'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 L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/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, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Oevi,i case (supra). But still. it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regula rization/ a bsorption exist. The fore. Act2of 994 1 and G.O. Ms . No.212dated 22 -4 1994- .l nofw ittla down the wtdth a n.l the u n an ca r sn low rth e raiecto of the directaons i ued bv the Suo me Court in Pa ra530 f its iudqment in Uma De vi's ra t abt h res onde nts to take shelter nder A 2ol 1994 and G.O. Ms. o.2L2. ated 22.4.L994. denv r ular tzat nto th e oet t one who ha e- adm itte.l satisf te.l the criteria laid down in Para No,53 of the iudo ent in Uma Devi'.s case fsuDra ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27 .6.2O17 , in OA No.1442 of 20L4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the rit Detit o is allovve wirh rh dircc tion to the res ndents to cons ider reo larisataon of th servic of the etitione aoa inst the existino vacancies of Work n e etr the riteria la d down in Para N ,53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's ce (suora . This orocess must be comoleted wit in two onths from the date of receiot of a coovof this order."

¶179

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment da 2L.O4.2 O2O oassed in I.A.Nos. 1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019

¶180

¶181

SNJ, wP_26125 _2022

¶182

and W,P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe

¶183

379 at oaras 45, 48 and^para 5O observed as under:-

¶184

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

¶185

4a Itis not known wh h 1sf rFcn(tnalent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case^(suora), as explained in M.L, Kesari's case^(suora) and undertaken a one-time exercise of oreoarinq the list of dailv waoe emolovees who had worked for more than ten (1O) vears without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 1O.4.2OO6 and subiect them to a orocess verification as to whether thev are workano aqainst vacant oosts and possess reouisite qualifications for the oosts. and if so, rqqularaze their seryicqs.

¶186

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 2L of the Constitution of India; the resoondents are directed to regularize on one-time basis petitioneE' services from the date each of the^petitioners m^nlata 10^{rroar< nf ca} rvt nd^rilv wrrrac fr.arrr +ha initial dates of their aooointment. But, thev shall not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise shall be done within two⁽²⁾ weeks from the date of receipt of coDv of the order."

¶187

This Court opines that in the oresent case. the resDondents failed to discha roe thear dutv in examininq the request of the oetitaoner for reqularization of Detitioner's services who is workino as full ti me sweeDer and further to consider his ouest to treat the temDorarv rvice of he etitioner the I off ll ti

¶188

¶189

SNJ. wp 26125 2022

¶190

sweeDer as reqular one r all DurDoses bvo rantino last o rade av wit h oeriodical incremen revlsed from time to time from the date of aooointmen of the oetit ner, rn a ccorda nce to law.

¶191

This Court ooines that Detitioner is entitled for conside ration of oetit oner's case for qrant of the relief as praved for in the oresent rit Petition in vi w of the rvatio n f x n varl ud m nt (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Divisio Bench of thi Court in the udqments referred to and extracted above.

¶192

Takinq into consideration: -

¶193

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

¶194

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

¶195

i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ia) 1990(2) SCC Page 396

¶196

¶197

SNJ, \trq 125_2022

¶198

(iai) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2O17) l scC 148 (vi) 2O1o(9)scc247 (vii) (2o13) l4scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) I scc 26s (x) (2oL4)7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ol2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD. Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶199

d) The Division Bench order of this^{Court dated} 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol^{2O1O and 854 of} 2012 while uploading the Judgment^{dated O8.O9.2O1O} passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of^2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶200

e) The Division Bench order of this^{Court dated} L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272l7 ol^{2O17 (referred to} and extracted above),

¶201

f) The Division Bench order of this^{Court dated} 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot^{2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and} W.P.No.23O57 ol 2OL9^(referred to^{and extractedabove).}

¶202

g) In the light of discussion and conclusion^{as arrived at} as above from^para Nos.4 to²⁴ of^{the present order.}

)

SNJ. \,tt 26125 2022

The Writ tion i a h ati er s directed to ],ut-fortht he clai oft e etition r for requl attzationo DEtiti ner'sserv ces a da lsot hec!aim of the Detiti oner tot at the te DO rv se s the itio er n el s r e of ul ron t al u b r ti ra I to al tn e s rev ed fr m ta e e a of tn t t h n dal u ntia en fi en o n al r ev n d u en In s J ti on r a o e nt w t ti ao w thi o n 1 kf o th da I cel t T fth er n s nd nts all ex mtne an nst rt a o an t w tn n for ith r cl I n ur I s r adi ano o unr f al r! e ta ton n r J d th e Co U a evi's s o 4 P e1 h u en ss di P 4 7 2 7 a o 9 o10 !n 11 A a 2 4 n as nfi m dinW .A No 7 2 2 a 1 o 3 and ls a r Divi to B c t f c da ed 1 .o9.2 7 a s dinW P o.2 7 J o 7 te tn

¶207

¶208

SN', wP_2612s _m22

¶209

.l 201A( 2^.IAL D a^d e2 A2a nd also the Division Bench Judqment of this Court d ted 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No. 3O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Daoe 379 which had attained finalitv. within a oeriod of four^(O4) weeks from the date of receiot of a coDv of this order. dulv takino into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudqments^(refered to^and extracted a e). and in oarticular, Dara No.5 3 of the iudoment of the laex Coutt in the case of State of rnataka v. Uma Devi and dulv communicate the decision to e oetitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶210

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending in this Writ ll Petition, shall stand cl

¶211

o'' ' ^S.is^{ff;,llt:3AT[iE}

¶212

,TTRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶213

oneFaircop'i?:1',.[:t:li$[t'-Y:J',S"tffi 'o"'NANDA

¶214

To 1. 2 +l"ttfit"?'3"""retary,^{Unionof lndia Ministryor Law' Justice and companv} 3 ?ffi '3;)EHii$i"nnun"^{Advocates AssocrationL ibrary' Hish court} 4 ?Hlt#ffi':y't:3:;9ry,^{Panchavathrai Department'relanqanasccretariat} HvoerjuaO,^{State of Telangana'}

¶215

-,-E{..i

¶216