Allowed

Kalyani Kumari v. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Telangana HC10 Jul 2025WP/26772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a scavenger engaged on contingency basis since 2011 by Singareni Collieries Educational Society challenging rejection of her regularization claim. The court held her continuous long-term service could not be rejected merely as temporary and allowed the writ petition directing reconsideration of her representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's representation dated 08-01-2022 for regularization in accordance with law; no costs.

Kalyani Kumari Vs The Singareni Collieries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

,^- t, tt,

¶2

132s21

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF^JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶8

:26772

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kalyani Kumari, W/o. 33 Years, Occ. Scavenger, Singareni Collieries ,^{KothagudemTown and} District.

¶11

.PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,^{Kothagudem, Rep. by its Chairman and} Managing Director.

¶14

The Singareni Collieries Educational^Society,Rgp. F.y^{its General} Managei/Secretary, Qr.No. UIVI-1 4,^{Writers Basthi, Kothagudem.}

¶15

The Principal, Singareni Collieries^{Women's College, Kothagudem Town and} District.

¶16

The Head fvlaster, Singareni Collieries^{HighSchool, Kothagudem Town and} District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia'pr"ying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction,^{preferably one in the} nature of Writ of [Vandamus and to declare the^{impugned orders in proceedings} No. SCES tSECl2O22l3g5, dt. 12-4-2022 of the^{2nd respondentby rejectingthe} case of the petitioner for regularization of services of^{the petitioner as Scavenger} under the control of the 2nd respondent is as highly^{illegal arbitrary, unreasonable,} non application of mind and also in violation of^principles of^{naturaljusticeand} also in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of^{India and declare the} same as bad-in-law and set aside the same and consequently^directthe respondents to regularize the services of the^petitioner as a^{Scavenger by taking}

¶19

her services from the date of^{her appointmenti.e. 19-07-2011and with all service} benefits including arrears of^{pay by fixing the pay scale attachedto the said post.}

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 202!

¶21

Petition urrder Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit file<i'in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased To} suspend the^prr>ceedings No.^{SCES/SEC12O22|395,dt. 12-4-2022of the 2nd} respondent, by n:gularizing the services of the^{petitioneras a Scavenger by taking} her services frorn the date of her appointment i.e.^{19-07-2011 (as a contingent)} and with all service benefits including arrears of^{pay by fixing the pay scale} attached to the sirid^{post, pending} disposal^{of the"abovewrit} petition. ffi

¶22

'' Counsel for the l'etitioner:^{SRI C.} EKnnR REDDY Counsel for the llespondents: SRI^P HA (sc N[ s co.LTD) The Court made the following: ORDER .x.L ffi,ifitAi

¶23

¶24

¶25

sN,t W.P.No.26772 2022

¶26

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri.C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.p.Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., appearing on behalf of the ,*^"1r' respondents.

¶29

¶30

praver as under: ,, ;; :"' rei#h.'

¶31

"....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned orders in proceedings No.SCES ISEC/2022/395, dt.L2-42022 of the 2nd respondent by rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of services of the petitioner as Scavenger under the control of the 2nd respondent is as highly illegal arbitrary, unreasonable, non application of .mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and al'so in violation of Art. L4, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad-in-law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as a Scavenger by taking her services from the date of her appointment i.e. L9-07-2OLL and with all service benefits including arrears of pay by fixing the pay scale attached to the said post and to pass....',

¶32

¶33

stt,J w.P.No.26772_2022

¶34

¶35

The petitioner was engaged as a female scavenger^on contingoncy basis by the 3'd^{respondent college with effect} from L9.07.20tL, pursuant to a sanctioned note^dated 27.06.20tt and^petitioner has been in continuous^service since then. Later, the^{petitioner was transferred to the} 4th resllondent school on 26.09.2018,^{where petitioner} continuers to work. Despite^{putting irr over 7 years of} service, the^petitioner's employment^{has notbeen} regulari:zed, nor has the^pay scale^{applicable to regular} employeres been extended to her. From^{2018 onwards,} petitioner was forced to sign ad-hoc contract bonds under threat of discontinuation. Hence, the^{petitionersubmitted a} representation dated 23.tt.2018^{seeking regularization of} petitiont:r's services. Though this Court^passed an^order dated 2,+.L2.2021 in W.P.No.3608^{of 2019, the claim of the} petitioner was rejected without^proper consideration,^even though similarly situated employees^{were regularized.} Aggrieved by the same, the^{petitioner filed the present Writ} Petition.

¶36

t--- ^ .- -

¶37

¶38

sN) W.P.No.26772_2022

¶39

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

¶40

¶41

Sub: Order dt: 24.t2.2O21 issued by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in WPNo.360B/2019 filed by Smt. Kalyani Kumari- Reg.

¶42

Ref: Representation dated: 08-01-2022 submitted to General Manager, SCES, by Smt K.Kalyani Kumari.

¶43

Reference to representation dated: 08.01.2022 submitted by Smt. K Kalyani Kumari addressed to General Manager, Singareni Collieries Educational Society, Kothagudem for regularize of employment as "Scavenger" or in any other suitable post to you.

¶44

It is herebv informed that vou were emoloved as female Scavenoer at Sinoareni women's colleoe, Kothaoudem on contract basis with remuneration of Rs.2,5OO/- oer month till the end of academic vear. Thereafter on vour reouest made to SCES. vou have been continued as Scavenoer and vou have executed an aoreement of contract for service for each academic vear and oavino as oer Minimum Waqes Act and at present Rs.12,898/-(Twelve Thousand Eioht Hundred and Ninetv Eioht Ruoees onlv) oer month.

¶45

As such vou were not eliqible for feoularization of vour services as Scavenoer or anv other suitable oost in the Sinoareni collieries educational Societv and accordinolv vour aoolication dated O8.O1.2O22 cannot be considered.

¶46

sN,t W.P-No-26772 2022

¶47

B) The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the

¶48

extracted hereunder:

¶49

"...In reply to Para 2, it is submitted that the petitioner was deoloved as a Scavenoer at Sinoareni Women's Junior Colleoe, Kothaqudem on continoencv basis on a remuneration of Rs. 2.5OO/- ner month from t9.O7.2OLL. It is submitted that the petitioner was deployed to work as Scavenger since the regular Scavenger working there expired on 13.06.2011 and the petitioner was posted due to exigency and was engaged as scavenger on temporary basis. It is submitted that for the said reasons the petitioner was deployed to work as Scavenger and was not issued any Office Order appointing her as Scavenger and as such her claim that she was appointed as Scavenger and that she should be regularized is not tenable. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner were engaged purely on temporary basis to meet the contingency situation arising out of the death of earlier regular Scavenger and since the Institution is a College, there was dire need to deploy someone on urgent basis to maintain cleanliness of bathrooms and toilets. It is submitted that as the vacancv of Scavenoer was not filled uo immediatelv, the services of oetitioner were continued due to exiqencies and her waoes were raised from time to time in accordance with G.Os issued bv the Govt. from time to time in keeoinq with Minimum Waoes Act and as such at oresent she is drawino waqes of Rs.11,343/-^per month as oer G.O.Ms.No.1O8, dated 08.O2.2OO9 includino DA which is enhanced everv six months as oer Telanoana Gazette Notification No.121 dated 23.O4.2O18 issued bv Commissioner of Labour, .Govt.^{of Telanoana...."}

¶50

¶51

SN,t W.P.No.26772_2022

¶52

(c)

¶53

are extracted hereunder:

¶54

rt is not disputed by the rearned standing counset for the respondents that the petitioner has been continuously working on N.M.R. basis.

¶55

As per the latest judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka & ors vs. Uma Devi (cited supra), the persons, who are working for long y.rr" on NMR basis, deserve to be considered for regurarization. rn view of the fact that the petitioner ln the present case has been discharging duties on NMR oasis since a long time, her services deserve to be regularized.

¶56

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regutarization as expeditiousry as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶57

Learned counser for the petitioner appearing on beharf

¶58

of the petitioner submits that the persons who are working for long years on NMR basis deserves to be considered as per the Judgment of state of Karnataka and others ys

¶59

.-" .. u* '--J-"=

¶60

¶61

sN) W.P.No.26772-2022

¶62

tlma Devi and others'^{and hence,contends that} petitiorrer is entitled for the^{relief as prayedfor in the} present writ Petition.

¶63

Lt:arned Standing^{Counselfor respondents submits} that thr:^{petitioner has been dischargingher duties since,} 2011 without any^{break and in pursuance of the orderof} this Corrrt daled^{24.t2.2021whereby, the respondents were} directed to consider^{the representation of the petitioner} afresh,rnd^pass appropriate^{orders on representationmade} by the^{petitioner seeking regularizationof her servicesas} scaven(ler, the^{2nd respondent considered the representation} dated 08.01.2022 of the^{petitionerand rejectedhis claim} vide inrpugned order^{dated 12.04.2022on the ground that} the petitioner has^{been working purely on temporary basis} as^per the agreement^{of contractfor servicesexecutedby} the pel:itioner at the^{beginning of every academicyear and} receivirrg the salary^{as per the Minimum Wages Act for the} said services, hence,^{the petitioner is not eligiblefor} regularization as^{scavengeror any other suitable post in the} Singar,:ni Collieries^{Educational Society.}

¶64

'^{(zooe) a scc r}

¶65

¶66

sN,t W.P.No.26ZZ2_2022

¶67

¶68

"36. There are some of the em ployees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establish particular project, their services ment, ought not againstto have beenany regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus U madevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure the services be regula rized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more sh ould have been regularized. It would not be p roper to regulate them for consideration of reg ularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. H owever it is made ctear that they shall not.be entifled to cla iming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the a ge of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have

¶69

purpose of oension.,,

¶70

¶71

SN,J W.P.No.26772-2O22

¶72

gerson$ as reqular one.

hereunder:-

sN,t W.P.No.26772-2O22

¶77

¶78

hereunder:

¶79

*12. Despite being tabelled as "part-time workersr" the^{appellants performedthese} essential tasks^{on a daily and continuous} basis over extensive^{periods,ranging from} over a decade^{to nearly two decades' Their} engagement^{was not sporadicor temporary} in nature, instead,^{it was recurrent,regular,} and akin to the^{responsibilitiestypically} associated with^{sanctioned posts' Moreover,} the respondents^{did not engage any other} personnel for these tasks^{during the} appellants tenure,^{underscoringthe} i indispensable^{natureof their work.}

¶80

the functioning of^{the offices.The recurring} nature of these duties^{necessitatestheir} classification as^{regular posts, irrespective of how} their initial engagements^{were labelled. It is also} noteworthy that^{subsequentoutsourcing of these} same tasks to^{privateagencies after the}

¶81

¶82

sN,t W.P.No.26772-2022

¶83

alrpellants' termination demonstrates the inherent n,3ed for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with alother further underscores that the work in qJestion was neither temporary nor occasional.

¶84

The landmark^judgment of the^{United State} ir the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as^{a pertinent} e.rample from the^private sector,^{illustrating the} c()nsequences of misclassifying employees^to circumvent^providing benefits. In this^case, Microsoft classified certain workers^as irdependent contractors, thereby denying them enployee benefits. The U.S. Court of^{Appeals for} the Ninth Circuit determined that^{these workers} were, in fact, common-law employees and^were eltitled to the same benefits as^regular erployees. The Cciurt noted that^large Corporations have increasingly adopted^the p.actice of hiring temporary employees or irrdependent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This^judgment underscores^the p.inciple that the nature of the work^performed, rather than the label assigned to the^worker, slrould determine employment status and^the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliqhts

¶85

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

¶86

¶87

¶88

SN,J W.P.Na.26772 2022

¶89

between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments be considered for regularization as a onetime 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. 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 application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively Weaponizino it against emplovees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶90

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 perlods, especially when.their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private

¶91

¶92

SNJ w,P.No.26772-2O22

¶93

sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of^{labour practicesin} the country.

¶94

In view of the above discussion^and findings, the appeals are^{allowed' Theimpugned} orCers^passed by the^{High Courtand the Tribunal} ar3 set aside and the^{originalapplicationis} allowed to the following^extent:

¶95

i. The termination orders dated 27. 10.2018 are^quashed;

¶96

It.

¶97

rarorr Id corrnted for i r ir(rst-

¶98

¶99

"115. It is manifest^{that the Aooellant Workmen}

¶100

¶101

sN,t W.P.No.26772_2022

¶102

agreement. 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 fottowing paragraphs:

¶103

"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 Lmptoymer; "r;;;;;;;, often characterized by lack of benefits, ;oO i".urity, 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 onry mirrors the detrimentut iruna, observed in the gig economy but arso sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in

¶104

govern mental operations.

I I I I

sN,t

W.P.No.26772-2O22

It is a disconcerting^{reality that temporary} employees,^{pafticularlyin government institutions'} often face multifaceted^{forms of exploitation. while} thefoundationalpurposeoftemporarycontracts rnay have been^{to address short-termor seasonal} needs, they^{have increasingly become a mechanism} to 2024 SCC^{Online SC 3826 evadelong-term} obligations owed^{to 'employees'These practices} manifest in^{several waYS:}

¶110

tT)

¶111

identical tasks.

¶112

o Arbitrary Termination: Temporary^employeesare frequently dismissed^{without cause or notice,as} seeninthepresentcase.Thispracticeundermines the principles^{of naturaljusticeand subjects workers} toastateofconstantinseburity,regardlessofthe quality or duration^{of their service'} '^{Lack of Career} Progression:^{Temporary employees often find} themselves^{excludedfromopportunities for skill} development,^{promotions,or incremental pay raises'} They remain^{stagnant in their roles, creatinga} systemic disparity^{betweenthern and their regular} counterparts,^{despite their contributionsbeing} equally significant.

¶113

.UsingoutsourcingaSaShield:Institutions increasingly resort^{to outsourcing roles performed by} temporary employees,^{effectively replacingone set}

¶114

)

¶115

¶116

SNJ W.P.No.26772 2022

¶117

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.

¶118

. 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 circumstances."

¶119

The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justifo 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 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

¶120

commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

¶121

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, L947, and that thev were engaged in

SN,t

W.P.No.26772-2022

nreaningful^{back waoes.is herehy set aside with the} lrllowinq^directions:

¶127

I. The discontinuation^{of the Appellant Workmen's} services, effected^{without compliance with Section} 6EandSection6NoftheU.P.IndustrialDisputes Act, Lg47, is^{declaredillegat' All orders or} communications^{terminating their services are} quashed. In consequence,^{the Appellant Workmen} shall be treated^{as continuingin service from the} date of their^{termination,for all purposes,including} seniority^{and continuity in service'}

¶128

II. The Respondent^{Employer shallrei} nstate the Appellant Workmen^{in theirrespective} posts (or posts akin to the^{duties they previously} performed) within four^{weeks from the date of this} judgment.

¶129

¶130

¶131

sN,J W.P.No.26772 2022

¶132

consequential benefits, such as seniority and elioibility for promotions, if any.

¶133

III. Considering the length of service, 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.

¶134

initiate a fair and transparent process for regulariz,ino the Appellant Workmen within six oosts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessarv administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on da'ily wages cortrarv to .statutory and equ

¶135

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."

l i .4..,**..

SN,t W.P.No.26772-2022

¶140

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court,^while adjudicating upon the above^{controversyhad concluded,} that temporary employees^{were not entitled tothe} ntinimum of the regular^{pay-scale, merely for the reason,} that the activities carried on^{by daily-wagersand regular} employees were similar.^The full^{bench however, madetwo} exceptions. Temporary employees,^{who fell in either of the} two exceptions, were held entitled to^{wages atthe} ntinimum of the^pay-scale drawn by^{regularemployees.} 7'he exceptions recorded by^{the full bench of the High Court} in the impugned^judgment are extracted^hereunder:-

¶141

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

¶142

(2) But if daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual appointees are not aopointed^{against regular} sanctioned posts and their services^{a,re availed} continuously- with notional breaks. by^the State Government or its instrumentalities^{for a} sufficient lono period i.e. for^7O Years-^such shall be entitled to minimum of^{the regular pav} scale without anv allowances^onthe assumption that work of^{perennial nature is} available and having worked for such^long considered separately in terms of legallY oermissible scheme.

¶143

¶144

¶145

SNJ W.P.No.26772_2022

¶146

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

¶147

¶148

under:

¶149

The decision in State of Karnataka v. tJmadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) 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 re- engagement 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 terins 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 Sfafe 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 Articles 74 and 16 of the constitution. This court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

¶150

¶151

sN,! w-P.No.25772 2022

¶152

"53 One a s to ba clar,^'ified- e-,|r! la (not iileoal apoointtnenBl as exolained in^S'V' Aennanaeoa^{r$aZ fttSrca tZAlru} Naniuidaooa 17972^{(71 SCC 4O9l and B'N'} Naqaraian [7⁹⁷⁹ G^{)scc5O7l andreferredto} ,n ra 75 bove. dulv ualified ,n dulv sandioned^{vacant oosfs nioht havebeen} ma eand the^em vees have tinu to for ved orm but without^fhe or n tribunils. ihe^{auestion of reaularization of the} servicel of^{quchemPlovees mav have to be} n Orincioles^{seitledbv this Court in the cases} of iidgment. In that^{context- the llnionof India'} the Sta rnme ts ndt 'heir instrumentalities^{s,hould take steosto} reaularize as a^{one-iimemeasure. the services} of such irreaularlv^{aooointed, who have worked} for ten vears or^{more in dulysanctionedoosts} but not undet^{cover of orders of the courts or} of tribunals and should^{further ensure that} u those vacant sanctioned^{Dosts that reouireto} be filled up. in^{caseswhere . temoorarv} emplovees or dailv^{wagers ate beina now} emploved. The Process^{mustbe set in motion} within six months^{frorn this date. ....}

¶153

"5. It is evident from^{the above that there is an} exception to the^{general principlesagainst' regularization'} enunciated in Umadevi,^{ifthe following conditionsare} tulfilled :

¶154

¶155

SNJ W.P.No.26772_2022

¶156

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the ,State Government or its instrumentality shoutd have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten^years.

¶157

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

¶158

employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OO6r.

¶159

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

¶160

¶161

sN't W.P,No.26fl2_2o22

¶162

aqainst vacant posts and^possess the requisite^{qualification} fctr the post and if so, regularize their services.

¶163

At the end of six months from the date of decisionⁱⁿ L"madevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization^process. On the cther hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise e'xcluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were^pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were eniitled to be coltsidered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in^para 53 of llmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should <:onsider all daily-wage/adholthose employees who had put in 70 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 tNithout 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 Umadevi, but did not ,:onsider the cases of some employees who were entitled to lhe benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also,-as a continuation of^the cne-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.

¶164

¶165

sN,t W.P.No.26772_2022

¶166

effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on IO.4.2O06 (the date of decision in Umadevir without the protection vacant posts. possessing the requisite qualification, fact that the employer h.as not undertaken such undertaken only in regard to a limited few. will not Umadevi as a one-time measure.

¶167

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

¶168

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law, The only further direction that needs be given, in view of lJmadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- tirne regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casuat/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of tJmadevi. If they fulfill them, their Services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or

¶169

¶170

s,v,, W.P.No.26772-2022

¶171

omitting^{the cases of respondents 1 to 3 becauseof the} pendency of^{these case, then their cases shall have to be} considered^{.in continuationof the said one time exercise} ttrithin three^{months' It isneedlessto say that ifthe} respondents^{do not futfill the requirementsof Para 53 of} Ltmadevi,^{their senrices need not be regularised' Ifthe} etmployees^{who have completed ten years servicedo not} t,ossess^{the educationalquatificationsprescribed for the} Stost,^{atthe time of their appointment' they maY be} consideredforregularizationinsuitablelowerposts.This itppeal is^{disposedof accordingly'}

¶172

L4. the Supreme^{Court considered the case ofabsorption of} Special^{Police Officers appointed by the State' whose} wageswerepaidbyBanksatwlrosedisposaltheirservices weremadeavailable.Itheldthatthemerefactthatwages were^{paid by the Bank did not render the appellants} 'employees' of^{those Banks since the appointmentwas} madebytheStateanddisciplinarycontrolvestedwiththe state:. It^{held that the creation of a cadre or sahctioningof} post:; for a^{cadre is amatter exclusively within the} authorityoftlreState,butiftheStatedidnotchooseto crea.teacadrebutchosetomakeappointmentsofpersons creatingcontractualrelationship,itsactionisarbitrary.It

¶173

-P ,/

¶174

¶175

SNJ W.P.N0.26772 2022

¶176

assessment of need. Referring to Umadevi, it held that the prescribed under the Police Act. 1861, and the State

¶177

the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and with the Constitution.

¶178

paras 7 and 8 reads as under:

sN,t

W.P.No.26772-2022

(7) We find it difficult to accept the reasonino^adopted Qr^{the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek} regularization ftows from the G.O.^{No.272dated 22.4.1994.} The appellant have beenⁱⁿ service^{of the first respondent} not only prior to the issuance of the^{said G.O. but even} subseauent to the^{issueof G.O. till today. The respondent} Municipality being a statutory body^{is obliged by the G.O.} 212(supra). Inspite of the above^{mentioned G.O. the} respondents kept quite for almost 20^yearswithout reryularising the service of the appellants^{and continuedto} e.<tract work from the appellants.

¶183

8, In the circumstances, refusing the benefit^{of the} a,bove mentioned G.O. on the^{ground that the appellants} a,cproached the Tribunal belatedly, in^{our opinion, is not} jtrstified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed nrodifying the order under appeal by directing^{that the} a,opellants' services be regularised^{with effect from the date} of their completing their five^{year continuous seruiceas} District w'as laid down by this Courtⁱⁿ Cottector/Chairperson & Others^{vs. M.L. Singh& Ors. 2009} (8) SCC 480.

¶184

SCC 265, the Suoreme Court^held that^{'The objective} behind the exception carved^{out in this case was to permit} regutarization of such appointment,^{which are irregularbut} not illegal, and to ensure appointments,^whichare irregular but not itlegat, and to^{ensure security of}

{

sN,t W.P.No.26772_2022

¶190

extracted above.

¶191

Supreme Court and it was held as follows :

¶192

tt principle laid down by this Court in llmadevi case (State of Karnataka v llmadevi (2O06) 4 SCC I : 2O06 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarely apoties to the with by this Court."

¶193

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2OZZ passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple,^yadadri, Nalgbnda Distriet, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in w.A.No.937 0f 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and atso confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.31g4t ot 2024.

¶194

¶195

¶196

sN) W.P.No.25772-2022

¶197

Nos.10t0 and 1O1 held^{as follows:}

¶198

":.00. The High Courts exercising their^{jurisdictionunder} Article 226 of the Corrstitution^{of India, not only have the} plwer to issue a writ of mandamus or in the^natureof nrandamus,

¶199

a oolicy decision of the Government^{or has exercised} consideration.

¶200

In all such cases, the High^{Court must issuea writ of} nrandamus and give directions to^{compel performancein} an appropriate and lawful^{manner of the discretion} conferred upon the Government^{or a public authority."}

¶201

¶202

dated tO.O6.2O13^passed in^{W.A.Nos.782of 2-O1O and 854} passedl in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of^2OO8 observed as under:{

¶203

"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 appellant-Corporation} erlso issued various office^{orders/circularsdated} i'.O.12.1989, 11.09. L992, 06.10.2007 and^{latest being} 11.7.2009 for regularization of casuaUcontract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25-T of^{the ID Act prohibits} tunfair labour practice by any employer^{or workman. As can} tle seen from the factual scenario^{of the cases on hand,} r:ngaging the respondents for such a long^{and continuous} lleriod^{of time on casual basis is nothingbut unfair labour}

¶204

¶205

sN,t W.P.No.26772 2022

¶206

practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

¶207

2L.

¶208

observed as under:-

¶209

'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 notewofthy 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.L994, 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 onetime absorption/regularization 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

¶210

L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the iudgment in Manjula Basfirni's case (supra), does not

¶211

¶212

sN't w.P.No.25772_2022

¶213

Suoreme^{Court in Para} for^{the resoondents to take shelter.underAct 2 of} l-994 and G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994, to denv reqularization to the oetitioners, who have, admittedlv. satisfied the riteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's ca^{se (suora).}

¶214

t8. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the 'fribunal is set aside and the wrat petition is allowed with the direction to the resoondents to consider reoularisation of the services of the^petitioners aoaanst the existino vacancies of Work Inspectors and rnn.rinf iharrr <rrhi +ri ih6ir. crf ieCrrinrr iha criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the^judoment in , , rn2 ,:rat , '< anca f<r rnra I Thic mr rc+ Jra completed within two months from the date of receiot of a coov of this order."

¶215

The Division Bench of t is Court in its Judoment dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I .A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 2 n.l w.P.Nn 2?OE7 .rf ,nl O na;+ad irr ,nrnrr.l^l rl 6..ra 379 at Daras 45, 48 and ra 5O observed as under:-

¶216

"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.

¶217

rt is n.lt knourn^{rarhw the} 1^straenandent as not followed the decision in uma Devi's case^(suora)'as exola ncd in MI K rirc ?a (suora) and

¶218

*y ---

¶219

¶220

SN,t w.P.No.26772_2022

¶221

{

¶222

undertaken a one-time exercise of preparino the list of d"ily *"9. ".rlor".s *ho had *orked fo. -or" tha' ten (1o) years *ithout the intervention of the Cor.tr ard Tribunals as on 1O.4.2OO6 and subject them to a process ,erification as to whether they are wo.king aoainst ,acant posts and possess rebuisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services.

¶223

Accordingly, the writ petition is ailowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respon?ent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time basis are declared as iliegal, arbitrary and violative of Articres L4, L6 and zL of the constitution ot India; tne responaents are or.-ti-", b".ir p.tition"rr' r"rri"." f.orn tJr" d"t" each of the petitioners complete 10 yffi on d"ity *"9"r f.o,'' th" initiur dit.G- ofE "ppoint-.nt.,.8!rt.^{th"y rh"ll ,ot b.} "ntitGdloE monetarv r,elief. The said exercise shall be done ithin t,o (?) *."kr fro- th. d"t" of@ of the order."

¶224

A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates the fact that the petitioner had been working with the respondent's school since the year, 2Ol1 on contingent basis on the remuneration of Rs.2rsoo/per month at Singareni Women,s 'Coilege, Kothagudem and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents clearly admitted that the petitioner is engaged purety on temporary basis to meet the contingent situation and the services of the petitioner were continued due to exigency and the petitioner's wages were raised from

¶225

<br>

¶226

¶227

sN,l w.P.No.26772_2022

¶228

time to time in accordance with G.Os issued by the Government from time to time keeping in vievrr of the Minimrrm Wages Act.

¶229

This Court opines that the petitioner has been working with respondents from the year 2O11 to till date as a ful! time scavenger, hence, the representation made by the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has been working purely on temporary basis as per the agreement executed by the petitioner with the Singareni Collieries Educational Society at the beginning of every academic year on petitioner's request and has been continuing as a scavenger for many years. Hence, this Court opines that the 04.o1.2022 repre:sentation of the pet-tioner dated needs; to be reconsidered in accordance to law, in view of the clear admission in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents at para No.S that petitioner had been continuing as a Scavenger since 19.O7.2OL1, duly itaking into consideration the observataons of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above)

SNJ

W.P.No.26Z72_2O22

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counset appearing on beharf of the petitioner and rearned standing counser for singareni corieries co Ltd appearing on beharf of the respondents.

¶234

c) The order dated 24.,.2-2021 passed in favour of the petitioner in W.p.No.36Og of 20tg (referred to and extracted above) d) The order impugned Ref. No.ScES/sEC | 2}zz / ggs, dated L2.O4.ZOZ2 passed by the General Manager (Education) secretary/scES in comptiance to the direction of this Court, dated 24.12.2ci2i: passed in W.p.No.36Og of 2Ot9 (referred to and extracted above)

¶235

e) The specific averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is continuousry working since 1g.o7.2,,r.- as scavlnger under the controt of 2nd respondent. f) The observations of the Apex court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:

¶236

i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s)

¶237

(ii) lseo(2) scc page 396

¶238

l. ;,**i

¶239

¶240

sN,l W.P.No.26772-2022

¶241

(iii) 2O2s rNSC¹⁴⁴ (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC)^12O9 (v) (2oL7)^{1 scc 148} (vi) 2o1o(e) scc²⁴⁷ (vii) (2013)^{14scc 6s} (v'iii) 2015^{SCC OnlineSC t797} (ix) (201s)^{8 scc 26s} (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32a47^{ot 2O24} (:rii) AIR 2O2O^{SuPremeCourt 3969} (:xiii) (2006)^{4 scc 1} (xiv) 2011^{(L) ALD, Page 234} (xv) 2O18(2)ALD Page²⁸² (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD Page³⁷⁹