Allowed

Habeebunissa Begum v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC18 Jul 2025WP/26181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A temporary contingent sweeper sought regularization and last grade time-scale benefits after 33 years of contingent service at pittance wages. The court, relying on Apex Court decisions including Uma Devi, Jaggo, Shripal and Division Bench orders, held her entitled to consideration for regularization.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine and consider petitioner's case for regularization and last grade benefits within four weeks, in conformity with prior judgments, and communicate decision; no costs.

Habeebunissa Begum Vs The State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

Is2521

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26181 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Habeebunissa Begum, W/o tr/.A. Azeez, aged about 67^{years,Working} .as Temporary Contingent Sweeper, U.P.S. Railway^{Station, Kamareddy, Kamareddy} l,4andal, Nizamabad District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Financeand Planning} Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Panchayathraj, Govt. of^{Telangaha, Himayathnagar'} Hyderabad.

¶14

The Zilla Praja Parishad, Nizamabad District,^{Rep.by its Chief Executive} Officer.

¶15

The IVlandal Parishad Development Officer,^{Kamareddy Mandal, Nizamabad} District, TS.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^{natureof Writ of} Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents^{in regularizing the services} of the petitioner nor^granting last^grade time^{scalebenefitsto petitioner even after} working on full time basis from 33 long^yearsin the^{contingentpost withoutany} service progress by^{paying pittance} wage^{of Rs. 4000/-per monthby denying her} to pay legitimate or living wages in violation of^{provisions of MinimumWages Act'} 1948, Equal Remuneration Act,^'1976 and Article 14,^{16, 21' 39 (d)' 43' 300(A) of} our Constitution and not implementing Govt.^{Orders issued in GO Ms. No. 193}

¶18

GAD, dated^'14-03-1990 and subsequent Govt. Orders b; the respondent Chiel Executive Officers as un.just, unfair, totally illegal a r I unco nstitu tiona I by subjecting the potitioner for exploitative enslavement d t: to her helplessness conditions of poverty. poor social, economical political ba; ground by taking it as advantage by the respondents and prays to direct the res r rndents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grad: post from the date of initial appointment by applying the decision and principle l: d by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (20 I (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench oI this Honble Court in WP No. 33936 or^'. X11 and Batch Cases dated 02-05-2018^(2O2A (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by lecision of the Honble High Court of A. P in W.A No 483 of 2021 dated 05-08-2⁽ 21 based on principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 2( 1B Apex Court, dated 23-03-2018 to reckon contingent services of petition: for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other etirement benefits by releasing consequentral monetary benefits in the last 3rade post including periodical increments, as revised from time to time vith 100 percentage compensation as pcr principle laid by Apex Court in the c;:s: of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand in C A No. 3416^- 3445 of 2010 and Batch C: ;es dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principl : , and decisions of the Honble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Honble Courl in the case of petitioner.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition un<jer Section 151 CPC praying that in the ;^-cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor- 1 may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the p: itioner as regular one by granting full time sweeper wages as paid to her collea3 re full time Sweepers working in panchayat schools in time scale of pay of last gru Je post forthwith.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH.GANESH

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondents No.1&3 : AGP FOR PANCHAYAII RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents No.2 : AGP FOR FINANCE & PLr\ INING Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5 : SRI RAM GOPAL RAO. I C FOR GP, MP, ZP The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

SN, J wp-_26t81 2022

¶25

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.2618L OF 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rura! Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, and Sri Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶29

The^petitioner approached the Court seekinq Draver as under:

¶30

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner nor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on fulI time basis from 33 long years in the contingent post without any service progress by paying pittance wage of Rs. 4000/- per month by denying her to^pay legitimate or living wages in violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Article L4, 16,21, 39

¶31

¶32

SN, J wp 26181 2022

¶33

(d), 43, 300 (A) oF our Constituti() and not implementing Govt. Orders issued in GO^{I 'ls.} No.¹⁹³ GAD, dated 14-03-1990 and subsequent⁽ ovt^Orders by the respondent Chief Executive Officc- as^unjust, unfair, totally illegal and unconstitutional I^{r subjecting} the^petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to^her helplessness conditions of^poverty, : )or^social, economical^political background by^t,r :ing it^as advantage by the respondents and^{prays t} ) direct^the respondents herein to treat the services of , e^petitioner as regular one in last^{grade post} from the : rte of^initial appointment by applying the decision and lrinciple^laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of^{P'r m} Singh^Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Divi:;.)n tsench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 33936 of 20 . . and^Batch Cases dated 02-05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 179 rS^(DB) followed by decision ot the Hon'ble High Cct rt of A.P.ⁱⁿ W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated 05-08-202I based on principle laid by the Honble Supreme Couri in C.A. No. 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23-03-2013 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for corr lutation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratui y and other retirement benefits by releasing consequen:i tl monetary benefits in the last grade post includirrr^periodical increments, as revised from time to tim€ with 100% compensation as^{per principle} laid by Apex -ourtⁱⁿ the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C,l .No. 3416^- 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 19-02';019^{(ALD 3}

¶34

¶35

SN. J wp 26181 2022

¶36

of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid^principles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the case of^petitioner and^pass...".

¶37

Learned counse^Iaooea rtn^o onb halfoft h e petitio n e r Dlacinq reliance on the averme nts m de in the affidavit filed in suooort of the Dresent writ oetition ertainin tn a rticu la r to vices rend ed petitioner with the resoondents herein for more than a decade contends that the oetitioner is entitle^{d forthe} relief as^pra ved for in the oresent writ oetition.

¶38

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

¶39

DISCUSSION AND CON CLUSION:-

¶40

Lear ned cou nsel a oDe f noo n behalf oft he etitio n e r bm hes e ln he re n case rs so ua re v covered bv the order of this^{Court. dated} o8 .O9.2()10 oassed inW .P.No.24377 ot 20 O7 reoortedⁱⁿ Paoe234 as confirmed in W.A.No.78^2ol 2011(1) ALD 2O1O. dated 1O.O 5 .20 13 and a lso order- dated^{19.09. 20L7} Dassed in W.P.No.27217 ot^{2OL7 reported in 2O18} 2 ) ALD

¶41

¶42

Sr"',.1 !p-26lii I 2022

¶43

Paqe 282 and also the order. dated 21.04.:l )20^passed in W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reoorted in 2O20(4)⁰ LD Paqe 379.

¶44

Learned standinq counsel aooearinq or behalf of the resoondent No,4 submits th at the orie \ ance of the oetitioner as out-fort n th e oresent Writ Pe ition had no been addressed to the respondents herein ;r; on date and therefore, the^petitioner cannot complain i r action on the pa rt of respondents herein in considerinq ttrr : qrievance of the oetitioner and hence. the relief as ora^y :d for bv tlre petitioner in the p resent Wit petition cohr,r rt be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst tl'r resDondents hereunder as souqht for and the petiti< ner mav be directed to Dut-forth the^{petitioner's qrier} ance as^put- forth in the^present Writ Petition by way of a detailed representation to the resoondents here _1 and upon receipt of the said rep resentation, the resorr rdents ^/ou ld consider the same in accordance to l,1ar, within a reasonable^period.

¶45

Learned coun rtn o lf of he^petitioner does not disoute the said submission made _b^y the learned

¶46

¶47

SN, J rvp 26rEI 2022

¶48

standinq counsel aDDearinq on behalf of the resoondent

¶49

No.4

¶50

The ADex Co rt in the iudqment reoorte d in^(2O2O)1 scc L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State ofUttar Pradesh and

¶51

others, at Dara 3 6 held as under:

¶52

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 3040 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular^project, their services ought^to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services^{have been} rendered for more than ten^years without the cpver^{of the} Court's order, as one-time measure, the^servicesbe regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten^years or more should have been regularized. It would not be^{proper to} regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services^be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear^that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues^of difference in wages had they been continued in service^regularly before attaining the age of superannuation.^They shall^be entitled to receive the^pension as if they have^retired from the reoular establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht fro m the dav^theventered the wor -charoed establishm^ent shall^{be countedas} o ua lifvino rvice for ouroose of oen sion. "

¶53

8 The Aoex Court tn the case of^Dha rwad Dis nct PW D Literate ailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs State of re in1 2 scc P e 6la flnc

SN, J \vp 26181 1022

that the State should not keep a Derson ir tem porarv or adhoc service for lonq period and have :o treat such ersons as re lar n

¶58

9, Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of t re Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. L I nadevi dated 10.O4.2006 reoorted in (2006) 4 SCC is extracted

¶59

here u nder: -

¶60

"53. One aspect needs to be clarif ied. fhere mav be cases where irreqular appointments (not illeoal aDoointm ents) as exDlaine in S.V. Naravanappa [1967^(1'l SCR 1281. R.N. Naniundarln 11-972 (L'l scc 409] and B.N. Naoarai an t1979 4) scc s07t and referred to in para 15 above, of luly qualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant Do!; s mioht have been made and the emDlovees hav€ continued to work for ten vears or more but without the i nterve ntion of orders of the courts cI of tribunals. The ouestion of reoularizati on of the sr: 'vt e of such emolovees mav have to be co n sid ere,l onm rits in the lioht of the orincioles se led bv thi Cou in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudomen . In that context. the Union of India, the State Governments and their ins .! ru m en ta I ities should take steDs to reoularize a:! a one-time measure, the services of such irrequ Ia r lv aooointed, who hav worked for ten vears or r nore in dulv cr nai rl nrrsle buf rrrri r r.r der r t orders of the courts or of tribunals and should furth E r ensure that reoular cruitments are u nderta ken to fill those vacant sa nctioned Dosts tha reouire t( be fil ed uo, an cases here temoorarv e r Dlovees o dailv waqers are beino now emoloved. Th Drocess n rust be set in motion w thin six months fro this dat

¶61

¶62

SN, J \vp,26l8l_2022

¶63

The iudqment of the ADex Court dated 20.12.2024, reported in 2()24 LawSuit(S C) 1209 in Jaqqo Anita and rs ion of India an th n r eva paraqraoh Nos.12, L3, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted h ereu nd er:

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

¶67

SN, J (p 26Il I 2022

¶68

The landmark^{judgmentoF the Unite: State} in the case of Vizcaino^{v Microsoft Corporati rn [97} F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l^{serves as a p(r tinent} example from the^{private sector, illustrat I g t..e} consequences of misclassifying^{employ'::s to} circumvent^provlding benefits.^{Inthis case/} Microsoft classified^{certain workers as indef'( ndent} contractors, thereby denying^{them enr>1oyee} benefits. The U.S.^{Court of AppealsFor th: Ninth} Circuit determined^{that these workers w( re, in} fact, common-law employees^{and were enti led to} the same benefits as^{regular employees. Thc Court} noted that large Corporations^{have incrt'isingly} adopted the^{practice ofhiring terl )0rary} employees or independent^{contractors as a neans} of avoiding^{payment of employee benefits, rereby} increasing their^{profits. This judgment under ;cores} the^principle that the^{nature of the work} performed, rather than the label^assigned 'o^the worker, should determine^{employmentsta - rs and} the corresponding rights^{andbenef t;. It} hiqhl iohts the i udicia rv's roleⁱ n re( J^ifvinq such miscla ssification s and ensurin,I^that rkers ive f tmen

¶69

While the^judgment in^{Uma Devi (iupra)} sought to curtail the^{practice of backdoor :ntries} and ensure appointments^{adhered to constit rtional} principles, it is regrettable that its^{princif'l:s are} deny often misinterpreted or^{misapplied tt} legitimate claims of long^{servingemploye'l;. This} judgment aimed to distinguish between^{" llegal"} and "irregular" appoin t nents. It cateoorica^I lv eld that e molovrl!s^rn I rreq ular aooointments,^{who wereeno:} l^{red in} dulv sa nctioned Dost and had g erved contin u o uslv r more than ten vears I^hould be considered for req^larizationas a^one- time measure. However,^{the laudable irr'ent of} the^judgment is being subverted^{when insl i utions} rely on its dicta to indiscriminately^{rel: ltthe} claims of employees, even^{in cases whe-: their}

¶70

¶71

SN. J wp_2618 l-2022

¶72

appointments are not illegal, but merely Iack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the^judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective apolication distorts the iudoment's soirit and D ur Dose effective! weaDonizinq it aqainst emDlovees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶73

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

¶74

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

¶75

i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are^quashed ;

S, J ,"1) 26181 1022

ii. The appellants shall br taken back on duty forthwith an ! heir servtces reoularised for- hwith. However, the aooellants shall_ rot be entitled to anv oe !^unrarv benefits/back waqes for the _^period thev have not worked for bul: would be entitled to continuitv of s1 :rvices for the said oeriod and thr! same would be counted for theirI^post- retiral benefits."

¶80

The Judqment of the Aoex Court date d 31.01.2025 reporledin 2O25lNSl 144 tn:SHRIPAL Atrl ) ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD". in oarticula I the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶81

"15. It is manifestlhat the Appell,rnt Workmen continuouslv re n dered their services; over several vears, sometimes spanninq more tJ1rn a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not^p t rduced in full, the Emolover' s ilure to furnish s;r rch recordsdesDite directions to do so-allow s an adverse infe n stabli h:d la bou r iurisorudence. Indian labour law strc,l rqlv disfavors oerpetual dailv-waoe or contractual e 1^qaqements in circumstanees where the work is I,ermanent in nature. Morallv and leqallv, worke r s who fulfil onooino municioal requirements vee r after vear cannot be dismissed summarilv as; d ispen sa ble, oarticularlv in th e absence of a oenui^{re contractor}

¶82

I I

¶83

¶84

SN, J lvP 2518 t_2022

¶85

aqreement. At this^juncture, it would be appropriate^to recall the broader critique of indefinite^"temporary" employment practices as done by a recent^judgement ol this court in Jaggo v. Union of India 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 labour standards, Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the^principles of fairness and^justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid^such exploitative employment^practices. When^public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets^a concerning^precedent that can erode^public trust in governmental 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 lo²⁰²⁴ SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These^practices manifestⁱⁿ several ways:

¶88

o Misuse "TemDorarv" Labels: Emolovees enoaqed for work that is essentia l, recurrinq, and inteqral to the functioninq of a n institution are o n labelled as "temoorarv" or "contractua I even when their roles m i rror

s. J

\ p 26 rS t 2()22

those of requ lar empl( ees. ch m iscla ssificatio n deoriveS wc'r kers of the it s fl b nefi at re ul r emolo vees are entitled to. desr r te oerformtnq id entica I tasks.

¶93

. Arbitrary Termination: TemporarT employees are frequently dismissed without cause o notice, as seen in the present case. This practice tndermines the principles of natural justice and subj- :ts workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardlr: ;s of the quality or duration of their service. . Iack of Career Progression: Temporary employ(:, rs often find themselves excluded from opportr nities for skill development, promotions, or incren e ntal pay raises. They remain stagnant in their rrt es, creating a systemic disparity between them a r d their regular counterparts, despite their contr butions being equally sig n ifica nt.

¶94

. Using Outsourcing as a Shiel l: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing role s performed by temporary employees, effectively rc rlacing one set of exploited workers with another.^-- ris practice not only perpetuates exploitation but al,; r demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the ot,l gation to offer regular employment.

¶95

. Denial of Basic Rights and Ben€f ts: Temporary employees are often denied fundar tental benefits such as pension, provident fund, h3llth insurance, and paid leave, even when their. tenure spans decades. This lack of social securit), subjects them and their families to undue hardsh t, especially in cases of illness, retirement, c r unforeseen circumstances. "

¶96

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

¶97

¶98

SN, J wp 26181 2022

¶99

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

¶100

L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen standsⁱⁿ violation of the most basic labour law^principles. Once it^is established that their services were termrnated^without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P.^Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enoaoed in essentia I DE rennial duties these wo rkers cannot b^e o f etua n whil concern m n tct al bud a m liance wit r n n r merit cons h concern not absolve r f uto obli to n te uita^!rla anlillanr ents. Indee^A bu rea ucratic limitations cannot trumD he leoitimate riqhts of work men who have served continuouslvⁱⁿ de facto re ular roles for an extended oeriod.

¶101

'tR Th lm ned^arda t f^*ha Hi hCo^rt f,a+ h extent thev confine the ADDellant Workmen^{to future} without conti uitv or daily-wa oe enoaqement

(

SN, ] lvp 2(, r81 2022

¶106

meaninqful back wa^qes, is herebv se t aside with the followinq directions:

¶107

I. The discontinuation of the App: lant Workmen's services, effected without complianr( with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Indust- al Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal.^r ll orders or communications terminating the r services are quashed. In consequence, the Ap::llant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in s -'rvice from the date of their termination, for all pr rposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶108

II. The Respondent Employer sh I I reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their resp::tive posts (or posts akin to the duties they previ: lsly performed) within four weeks from the date r,l this judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence⁽ fr )m the date of termination until actual reinstatri ent shall b counted for continuitv of srr, vice and all co n seo ue ntial benefits, such a sen ioritv a nd eliqibilitv for Dromotions , if anv.

¶109

III. Considering the length of servi,t ), the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinu. tion until their actual reinstatement. The Responde r Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thr< e months from the date of their reinstatement.

¶110

IV. The ResDondent Emolover s directed to initiate a fair and transDarerrl process for reoularizino the ADDe!lant Work r en wi hin months from t e date of reins ! ttement, dulv con s iderino the fact that thev h; ve oerformed oerennial mun icioal duties akin _ to Dermanent oosts. In assessino requlirr ization, the Emolov er shal I not tmDose ( I ucation al or Lrocedural criteria retroacti,r llv if such requirements were never arl ,lied to the Aooe llant Workmen or to simi arlv situated

¶111

¶112

SN, J vr?_2618t-2022

¶113

reqular emDlovees in the^past. To the extent that sanctioned vacanci es for such duties exist or are reouired, the Res DO ndent EmD lover sha ll exoedite all necessarv dministrative Drocesses to ensure these lonqtime emDloyees are lrot indefinitelv retained on dailv waoes contrarv to statutorv and eouitable norms.

¶114

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."

¶115

L2. The Aoex Co rt in a iudoment reoorted in^(2017)1 Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed as under:

¶116

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

¶117

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

¶118

2 ail or nt orn n re sanctioned Dosts a etr servrces are availed

¶119

¶120

SN, J \rp 2618t 2022

¶121

conti n UO slv. with noti6n I brea b fhe State Governmen toritsi nstrumentalities For a s fficient lonq eriod i.e. for 7 O vears. such a 1., tilv wa ers, ad hoc or centractual aDD ointees shal t_ be en tled to minimum of the reoular oa Y SCa l! | without anv allowances on the assum tion 'hat work of Deren nial nature available nd ha y ins worked for such lono oeriod of time, n ect J^ttable rioht is created in such c teoorv of o rsons ._Their claim for ulariza n if an have I be considered seoaratelv in terms of leoallv oermis5 ible scheme,

¶122

(3) In the event, a claim is made for mi,,imum pay scale after more than three years and wo months of completion of 10 years of continuous ,torking, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sl a be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and tvr t 1n6,7y1.rt..

¶123

The iudoment of the Apex Court reoori rd in 2O10(9) scc 247 betw en: State of Karna taka ? nd others v

¶124

M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular, Daras 4 . to 9 reads as

¶125

u nde r:

¶126

The decision in Stat, of Karnataka v. Umap< vi was rendered n 10.4.2 6 re or, d in 2006 4 SCC 1 In that case. a Constitution Bench of this Court held that ap,-; )intments made without following the due process or the - ,les relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regut. rization or reengagement nor make their service permanel ', and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Artit le 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directio,l ; for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, ir terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts m," ;t be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly w,t 1 the economic arrangement of its affairs by the state or its^,l stru menta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita e the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. j-l is Court fu rther held that a temporary, contractual, casual c . a daily-wage employee does not have a legat right to be^.t ade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the re I tvant rules or in

¶127

¶128

SN, J wp .26l&t 2022

¶129

adherence of Artictes^{14 and 16 of the Constitution.This Court} however made one exception to the above^{positionand the} same is extracted below^:

¶130

"53. One asDect needs to be clarified, The mav be swh r I ra n n aDDOint entsl as exolai ed in S.V. Nara^vanaDDa 7 7 sc R.Ar. a <fa ao9 7 and AA' A'a ara a n f tO 7o/ 4 sc^a<o71 and referred to in ra 75 above of dulv oualifie^d ns in du tioned tsm made a em lo conti. work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tr^{ibu na ls.} uestion of larization servt h m es to idere merits in the lioht^o f the^Drinc les settled b this Court in the ca ses abovere^ferred to^and in^{the lioht} of th iudoment. In that con xt. the Unton of Ind ia, the State Governmen ts and th^etr i nstrumentalities should ta^{ke steDs to reqularizeas} a one -time measu the services of such irre^u rlv ADDO' N ted. who have worked for^{ten vears or more} in dulv sanctioned oosts but not^{undercover of} orders of the cou or of tribunals and shou^td urther ensure t at reaular rec^ruitntent a undertaken to fill those cant sanctioned oosts that uire to be filled uD, in cases where temDo rv emolo es or dailv oers are bei.no now em loved. The Dro ss must be set mot,on within six months from th date.

¶131

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

¶132

(i) The employee concerned should have^{workedfor 10 years or} more in duly sanctioned^{post withoutthe benefit or protectionof} the interim order of any^{court or tribunal.In other words, the} State Government or^{its instrumentality should have employed} the employee and continued^{him in service voluntarilY and} continuously for^{morethan ten years.}

¶133

(ii) The appointment of such employee^{should not be illegal,} even if irregular,^{Wherethe appointmentsare not madeor}

¶134

¶135

SN, J rip_26lll I 2022

¶136

continued against sanctioned posts or ,rt zre the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed mint,l um qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illtr a l. But where the person employed possessed the prescribeo lualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but b, )d been selected without undergoing the process of open corl )etitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregt,t 1r.

¶137

(iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDOn :he concerned Gove'lament or instru mentalitv. tor ake steps to reo larize fhe servlces of those lfreq tt arlv aopointed emolo vees who had serve for more , han ten vears WI out the benefit or Drotection of anv t I terim orders of urts tribu ls a aon m m l ;ure. Uma evl, n rust be setin of its decIston 7

¶138

The term^'one-time measure, has to be L nderstood in its proper perspective. This would normallv me:, 't that after the decision in Umadevi, each department^'or ea'' , instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and pr: tare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who ,. ve been working for more than ten years without the interventr tn ot courts and tribunals and subject them to a process / 'rification as to whether they are working against vacant post.; and possess the requistte qualification for the post and if so. regularize their services.

¶139

At the end of six months from the dair of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc7: rsual employees w.ere still pending before Courts. Consei tently, several departments and instru menta lities did not corl nence the one_ time regularization process. On the oth ? . hand, some Government departments or instru mentalitie; un(lertook the one-time exercise excluding several s.,,ployees from consideration either on the ground that theircu; ,, *"re pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such cl-, umstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered t 1 terms of para 53 of the decision in umadevi, will not lose I Eir right to be considered for regularization, merely becau: t the one_time exercise was completed without considering .heir cases, or because the six month period mentioned in p:a r e 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should cr,r sider alt daily_ wage/ad hoc/ those employees who had put it 10 years^'of

<br>

SN, J wP_26181_2022

continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of coutts 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 should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

¶144

The obiect behind the said direction in oara 53 of Umadevi is fold. First is to ensure at those who ut ,n more h,n jan tra2rc of con without the Drotection of anv interim orders of cou rts or ribuna ls e of decis rendered, are considered for reaularizati on^tnvtew of their lon ntiaa Caranrl I to errs tha '-h,i deoa rtments/ instrumentalities do not^p erDetuate^the Dractice of emolovinq Dersons on dailv-waoe / adhoc/casual for lono oeriods and the oeriodica llv reoularize them on the oround that thev h^{ave served} for more than ten vears. therebv defeatins the^{constitutional} or statutorv orovisions relatino to re ruitment and aDDointment. The true effect of the dire ion is that all who have than ten 70.4.2006^(th date of decision in Umadevi) without the rotection f rtm rder of a n vacant Dosts, Dossessino the reouisite^qu alification.^are entitled to be considered for reqularization.^{The fact} that the emplover has not undertaken such^{exercise of} reoularization within six months of the decisionⁱⁿ Umadevi or that such exercise was unde ken onlv in reqard to a limited few, will not disent.^'itle such emolovees. the rioht to be co^nsidered for^{reqularization} in terms f t,he above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

¶145

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

¶146

The Division Bench of the^{HighCourthas directed that the} cases of respondents should^{be considered in accordance with}

¶147

(

¶148

¶149

Sr"'. J $p 26t8t 2022

¶150

law. The only further direction that needs b,> given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila^panchayat, G ) lag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a ( eneral one- ttme regularization exercise, to ftnd out whether ti:,re are any daity wage/casua l/ad - hoc employees serving the Zt,t panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the^-r spondents) fulfi the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Untt levi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. t t' such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or ) nit ng the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pender,c / of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered t1 continuation of the said one time exercise within three montht It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfi th ) requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not , e regularised. If the employees who have completed ten ye,. t ; service do not possess the educational qualifications prescrib? I for the post, at the time of their appointmenq they may t, considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This ap1,, al is disposed of accordingly.

¶151

L4. In the iudoment of the ADex Court I r Nihal n h and others v. State of Puniab reDorte in r'!O 13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case , )f absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose l isposat their services were made available. It held that I he mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did nct render the appellants 'employees, of those Bank; since the appointment was made by the State anj disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that thr: creation of a cadre or sanctionang of posts for a cadre is a matter

¶152

SN, J wp 26181_2022

¶153

exctusively 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 refused to c e t nce hat there e and so there was^tus tification for t^he st^{ate toutlise} services of laroe number of eoole ike the aooellants for decades. It held that "sancti oned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi . it held that the aooellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen. their initial in ment was n a la r' otn men as it been made in accordance with the statutorvo ro^cedure rescrl ed P li Act 186 a r;l lha Clrla cannot be hea rd to sav that thev are not entitled to^be tn e servl n rman basis as, accordinq to it, their aopointments were ourelv temporarv and not aoainst anv sanctaoned Dosts created bv the State. It was hel that the iudqment i n Umadevi cannot become a Iicence for exoloitation bv the State and

¶154

¶155

SN, .l \rf 26t8 t 2022

¶156

its i tru m e nta lities and neither the (i, rvernment of Pu n ab no r those Dublic sector Banks can c 1 ntinue such a oracti ce inconsistent with their obli atio n fun tn accordance with th e Constitution.

¶157

The iudoment of the Aoex Cou reDt^rted in 2O15 scc n line SC 1797 between B.Srinivasult and other SV Nello Municipal CorDoration Rep.b its om missioner, Nell ore District, And hra Pradesh and other: L in oartic lar

¶158

pa ra s7 and 8 reads as u nd er:

¶159

(7) WeJnd it difficutt to a !, e adooted bv the High C,ourt. The rioh of the aDDellants to stt k req u la riz a tion flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22 .4.1991 The apoellant have t tnlv p rior to the tssuance_ of the said G.O. but even subseouert to the issue of G.O. tiil todav. The respondent Municipality Lting a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Insri ? of the abov:e mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite fo|lmost 20 years without regularising the service of the appeltant and coniinued to extract work from the appellants.

¶160

B. In the circumstances, refusing the benel t of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appelt? 1ts approached the Tribunal belatedty, in our opinion, is' not I tstified. In the circumstances, the appeal is attowed modifying , ke order under ap.p.ea I -by directing that the appe ants, serviies be regutarised with effect from the date of their completing their iire year continuous sentice as was taid down by this- I turt in District C-ollectoilChairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh I Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 4BO.

¶161

fn arkantRai v State of Bihar repo l I ed (20Ls)8 c26 th s e rt held that 'I I re obiective

¶162

¶163

SN, J wP,26 r81 2022

¶164

behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are ensu r n irregular but not illegal, and emolovment of those Derso s who had served the State Government and their instrum entalaties for more than ten vears". In that case, emDlovee was workinq for 29 vears. This decision aoDroves arlier view expressed in M. L.Kesari extracted above.

¶165

L7. In State of .Ia rkhand v Kamal Prasad reDorted in (2OL4) 7 SCC 223. simi lar vaew was taken bv the Suoreme Court and it was held as follows :

¶166

"47.,.. In view of the cateoorical findino of fact on the relevaat contentious issue that the resDondent emolovees have continued in their service for more than 70 vears continuouslv therefore, the leoal princiole laid down by this Court in Umadevi case^(State of Kar.^'nataka v Umadevi (2OO6) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&SI 73) at para 53 souarelv aoolies to the Dresent cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has riohtlv held that the resoondent employees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with bv this Court."

¶167

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha

¶168

¶169

SN. J ,.\n 16lll I_2011

¶170

Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda^{Di itrict, which} had been upheld by the Division Bench rf^{this Court} in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated^{1O.1O.2C23 and also} confirmed by the order of Apex lourt^dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶171

The iudq ment of the ADex Court in {ari^Krish Mandir Trust V. Sta te of Maharashtra and^Ot I^{ers reoorted} in AIR 2O2O Sup reme Court 3969^{andin p r -ticular oara}

¶172

Nos.100 and 1O1 held as follows:

¶173

"100. The High Courts exercising their;uri diction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nol lnly^{have the} power to issue a writ of mandamus or in :he nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to e l ercise such pou{el where the Governme ntorapu ! lic authoritv has failed to exercise or has wron(I exercr se d iscretion conferred uoon it b^{v a} statut( or a rule.or a oolicv decision of the Government or I as exercrs ed such discretion mala fide,oro t irrelevan! con si d e ra tio n.

¶174

In all such cases, the High Court must^{ssue a writ of} mandamus and^give directions to compel l:rformanceⁱⁿ an appropriate and lawful manner of^t re^discretion conferred upon the Government or a^{public;t lthority."}

¶175

2(J. The Division Bench of this Court in I s Jud m dated 1O.O 6.2013 oassed in W.A. os.782 of I )1O and 854 of 2O12 whil e uoh oldin o the lud^o ment dateI o8.09.20

¶176

¶177

SN, J wP_26t8t 2022

¶178

assed in .24 77 of 20 7 n c.c. t2

¶179

observed as unde r:-

¶180

"Further, it ls manifest from the material on^{recordthat the} services of the similarly^{placed persons who approachedthe law} Courts were regularized. The^{appellant-Corporation also issued} various office orders/circu^la rs dated^{20.12.1989,11.09.1992,} 06.10.2007 and latest being^{4.7.2009for regularization of} casual/contract employees, It^{is also to be seen thatSection25-} T of the ID Act prohibits unfair^{labour practice by any employer} or workman. As can be seen^from the^{factual scenario of the} cases on hand, engaging the^{respondentsfor sucha longand} continuous period of time on casual^{basis is nothingbut unfair} labour^practice attracting the^{provisionsof Section 25-T of the} ID Act. The learned Single Judge^{while relyingon the decisions} of the Apex Court, rightly held that^{the respondentsare entitled} to regularization as directed in the^{impugnedorders,as the} learned single Judge considered^all the^{aspectsof the matterin} detait, in the^{properperspective,which,in our consideredview} does not warrant interference^{in these appeals."}

¶181

2L. The Division Benc of this Cou rt in its Jud oment dated 19.O9.2OL7 Dassed in W.P.No.27217^o 20L7 reDorte d in 2O18(2)A^D oaoe 282 at^{oara16 and} ara 18

¶182

observed as under:-

¶183

"16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme^Courtis binding throughout the country^{under Article 141 of the} Constitution of India. it is^{noteworthy that by the time the} judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered,^the provrsions 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^{regularizationand absorptlonof 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 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 alsoUnion of India'}

¶184

¶185

s.^I \vp 26llt I 2r.)21

¶186

The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscioLr; of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and execull , orders such as G.O. [4s. No.212, daled 22.4.1994, while g vi rg directions in Para No.53 of the judgmenl in Uma Devi's t; re (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour oF t te States where State enactments banning reg u larization/e t sorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 19 94 1OO and G.O. Ms. N o.212, dated 22.4.19 94 do not whittle down the 4 idth and the iudoment in Manjula Basfiiaf's case (su6 ra ), does not lower the traiectorv of the directions i;sued bv the SuDreme Court in Para 53 of its iudomen ._ in Uma Devi's case^(suora). It is, therefore, not oern i ;sible for the resDondents to take helter under Act 2 01 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4,1994. to denv r ( .! ula rization to the Detitioners. who have, admittedlv. satisfi ed the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iu I rment in Uma Devi's case^(su ora). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, I led 2f .6.2OU, in OA No.1442 of 7014, on the file of the Tribt ral is set aside and the writ oetition is allowed with the r I rection to the resDondents to consi der reou larisation of t re services of the oetitioners aoain st the existino vac. r cies of Work Insoectors and aoooint them ubiect to :l eir satis the criteria laid dow ll in Para No.53 of tl r iudqment in Uma Devi's case^(suor a). This Drocess mus!^{be comoleted} within two months from the date of recei p: of a copv of this order."

¶187

The Division Bench of this Court in I Jud ment dated 21. O4.2O2O Dassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2X i t 20L9 and w.P.N .23057 of 2019 re Dorted in 2O2() 4)ALD Daqe 379 at oar s 45, 48 and Dara 5O observed as ! nder:-

¶188

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have t) en working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almor;l (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum ime-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously u orking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till dr t :.

¶189

It is not known whv the lst resoon Ient has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's cas r (suora), as

¶190

¶191

SN, J \tp.-26181 2022

¶192

x tn .L. Kesari' ra ken one-ti e exercrse of oreoarinq t^he list^{of dail} waqe e who rk for h n en 1 without the intervention of th^{e Courts andTribunalsas on} 10.4.2005 and subiectthemtoaD cess verificati n as to whether thev are workinq aoainst^vacant osts and r uts ifi ton f requl rize their servi^ces.

¶193

Accordingly, the writ^{petitionis allowed; the impugned} orders dated 20.8.2019^{passed by the 1st respondentrejecting} the cases oF petitioners for regularization^{of services on one-} time basis are declared as illegal,^{arbitrary and violative of} Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the^{Constitution of India;the} resDon ents are dire ted to^{reoularize on one-ti} e basis itio vt fro a e eta let6 ln vaaic ofs r n al fro initial dates of their aopointm ent.^{But,thev shall} ot be n^t itle m net f. Th x r rse s^hrllha wt hin t we ks he date r copv of the order.^"

¶194

This Court o^D es that i ntheo resen t case th^e resDondents failed to discha^{roe theirdutv in examininq} the reouest of the Detition^{er forre} o u Ia rization of Detitione r's services. who is workin o as full time conti n^qent sweeoer and further to con^{siderher reuest to} treat the temDora rv service of^{the oetitioner in thelast} qrade Dost of full time conti oent sweeo er as requl r one for all DUTDOSeS bv orantinq^{Iast oradeDv with oeriodical} tncre ent revise d from time to^{timefrom the dte of} ent of t etit r ln rda e w

¶195

¶196

¶197

SN. J \p 16 ll] I 2022

¶198

This Court ooin es that oetitioner i; entitled or cron s id eration of oetitioner's case for o ra nt rf her li fa pra ed for in th prese nt Writ Petiti on Ir view of the ob ervations of the Aoex Court in Vaf ll 2 rs judqments (referred toa dex tracte d above) and th,: view of e Di vrston Benc hoft his Co urt tn the Jud me r ts referre to d x act dab e

¶199

Taki nq rnto co ns ide ra tion : -

¶200

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances ( f the case. b) The submissions made by the teii .ned counsel appearing on beharf of the petitioner and reir.ned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respond€r t Nos,4 & 5.

¶201

c) The observations of the Apex Court the various judgments (referred to and extracted abo,r :) and again enlisted below:

¶202

i) (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 199o(2) ScC pase 396 (iii) 2O2s rNSc 144 (ir) 2024 Law Suit (SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) 1 scc 14a (vi) 2o10(9) scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC LzgT

¶203

¶204

SN, J wp_26181,2022

¶205

(ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4)7 sCc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11(1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶206

d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in w.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 20O8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶207

e) The Division Bench order of this . Court dated L9.O9.2Ot7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above),

¶208

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

¶209

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

¶210

The Writ Petition is allowed, the oetitioner is lr h c h ton rt

SN, J \rp:6lsl 2022

reqularization of Deti ioner's services, and t lso the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temoorarv se rvi f the netitaon r !n f h A st rAde nost of contin 1^{t Sweeoeras} reqular one for all otrr Doses bv qrantinq last qrade Dav with oeriodical increments revised from time to time from the date of aDDointment of the Detiti r 1er and all conseouen tial benefits, dulv enclosinq all the releva nt docume nts in suooort of Detitio ner's case E: put-forth in the oresen t writ oetition. within a Deriod of o re f O1 week from the date of receiDt of coov of the o 'der and the resDon dents shall examine and consider _ he sameⁱⁿ accorda n ce to law, in conformitv with orinciu es fn ural iustice bv orovidinq an oooortunitv of Derson rl hearin etitio n er tn s f orders sed :he Su Dreme Court in Uma Devi's case reDorted in 2006(4 SCC Pa^qe 1, the iudom ent oassed in W.P. No.24377 o1 2 dated 08.09.2010 reported in 2011⁽ 1) ALD, Paq 3 234 and as confirmed in W. A.No.782 of 2O1 O dated 10 ( 6.201 3, and also as oer Division Bench Judo ment of thi ; Court dated L9.O9.2(Jt7 oassed in W.P.No.27 2L7 of 2OOI reoorted in 20LA( 2)ALD Daoe 282 and also the Div sion Bench

SN, J wp 26181.2022

Judqment of this Court d ted 2L.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 reported in 2O20(4)ALD oaqe 379 which had attained finali tv. within a Deriod offo ur^(O 4 ) weeks fromt he date of receipt of a copv of this order, dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv h A x Cou ln h v n ud ment x^t f^actatl ab ve^{</sup> and tn n rticu la r ara No.53^aft h iudqment of the Aoex Court in the case of State of I(ar n 2t, k, ,tm a D vt n^AA ul communr^r.:ia t h decision to the Detitioner. oweVer there shall be no order as to costs.}

¶219

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ J Petition, shall stand closed.

¶220

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute^{as above.} Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{APARESHKUMAR SINGH, on this} Friday, The Eighteenth Day Of July Two^{Thousand And Twenty Five}

¶221

\ SDIB. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT RF,6ISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I (q SECTIdI( OFFICER

¶222

¶223

one fair copy to the^{Hon'ble Mrs Justicd SurepalliNanda} (for Her Ladyships Kind Perusal)

¶224

To,

¶225