Allowed

B. Padmaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jul 2025WP/27399/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A full-time sweeper appointed on compassionate grounds in 1993 sought regularisation and consequential monetary benefits after 28 years of continuous service. Relying on Apex Court decisions including Umadevi and later judgments, the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a representation and the respondents to examine and decide his claim for regularisation per p

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner to file representation with documents within one week; respondents to decide regularisation claim per para 53 of Umadevi within four weeks after personal hearing; no order

B. Padmaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[32521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{SIXTEENTHDAYOF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFI\IE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRSJUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^{273990F 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Padmaiah, S/o^{B. Ramulu,aged about SZ Yeap'-lVqrk!€ as Full time} il;oJ: PS V"nkepally,^{Marrisuda Mandal, NalgondaO'tt*..."=r,rro*=*}

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayathral} Department, Telangana^{SecretariatlHyderabad'}

¶11

'H:'H:;iiE?i#,l*i'#'";::',:u:rsL:H"'rof9ffi^{ifi llll} S. itre Oistrict Collector,^{(Panchayats) and Chairman of Selectlon(smmlnee'} Nalgonda, Nalgonda^District

¶12

1. The Zilla Praj^{a Parishad,Nalgonda DistrictRep. by its€h} rie Officer. 5. The Mandal^P arishad DeveloPment^{Officer, Marrigud} District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue an order or^{direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ} of Mandamus^{to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the} temporary appointment^{provided to the petitioner on compassionategroundsin} the year 1993 as^{per GO Ms. No. 687 dated03-10-1977 and G'O'Ms'No'661'} daled 2311Ot2O08^{to till date by paying starving wages of Rs' 16231 per month} from 28 long^{years ignoring legitimate wages payableto the petitioneras per} section¹ 3 and^{1 5 of Minimum wages Act, 19218 and section 4 of Equal} Remuneration Act.^{1976 RM/ Article 14, 16, 21' 39 (d)' 43 and3OO(A) of our} Constitution, as^{highly illegal, uniust, unfair and violationof the provisionsof the} saidActsandourConstitutionandpraystodirecttherespondentshereintotreat the^petitioner as a^{regular one in the last gradepost from the dateof} appointment by^{applying the principlelaid by the Honble Supreme Courtin C'A'}

¶15

No. 6798 of 2019 dated 02-09_2019 in the case of prem ti ngh Vs. State of U.p. (2019 (1) SCC -516) and with further direction to releasr) att the consequential monetary benefits of the rast grade post w.e.f .22-11-1993 t ) tifi date from time to time with lO0percent compensation on arrears of pay as pr r the principle laid by the Hon'bre supreme court in cA No. 3416 -3445 0f 201( dated 19to2t2019 in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avatar Chanel (2019 3 ALI SC 32) by awarding heavy cost.

¶16

NO:1OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 1S1 CpC praylng that in the I ircumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High cou t may be preased to direct the respondents herein to treat the temporary contir ;ent appointment of the petitioner provided on compassionate grounds on 22-11 1gg3 vide proc. No. C/408/93/MPP dated 22111t1g93 by Sth respondent as pr r GO Ms. No. 687 dated 03/10/1977 and G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23t1O12O08 r; regutar one in the last grade post forthwith by paying last grade time scare berr rfits to the petitioner with periodical increments from time to time.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH 9:lT:!^{for the Respondent Nos.1 TO s: cp FORSERvtcE!} -tl uounset ror the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI PRADEEP REDI y KAffA SC FOR

¶19

MPPZPP

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

SN, J

¶23

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶24

WRIT PETITI ON No.27399 oF 2021

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing^on behalf of the petitioner, learned^{AssistantGovernment} Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf^ofthe respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri^{Pradeep ReddyKatta,} learned standing counsel appearing on^{behalf ofthe} respondent Nos.4 & 5.

¶27

The Detition er aDDroached the^{Court seekinqDraver} as under:

¶28

"...to issue an order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of^Mandamus to^{declarethe inaction} of the respondents in not^{regularizingthe temporary} appointment^provided to the^petitioneron compassionate^grounds in the^{year 1993 as per} G.O. Ms. No. 687, dated 03.10.1977^{and G. O' Ms. No.} 661, dated 23llO/2OOB to till^{date by paying starving} wages of Rs.1623/^per month^{from 28 tong years} ignoring legitimate wages^payable to^{the petitioneras} per Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948^and Section 4 of Equal^{RemunerationAct, 1976 R/W Article} L4, 16, 21, 39(d),43 and 300(A)^{of our Constitutionas} highly illegal, unjust, unfair and^{violation of the}

¶29

¶30

SN. J

¶31

provisions of the said Acts and our ConsL tution and prays to direct the respondents herein t,l treat the petitioner as a regular one in the last grad,l post from the date oF appointment by applying the prin: pte laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C. A. No. 6798 of 2Ol9 dated 02.09.2019 in the case of prem Singh vs State of U. P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and with further : rection to release all the consequential monetary benr: its of the last grade post w.e.f. 22.lt.lgg3 to till date From time to time with 100o/o compensation on arrears of pay as per the principre raid by the Honbre supreme (r )urt in cA No. 3416-3445 of 2OLO, dated 19/02/2019 ir the case of Union of India Vs Avatar Chand (2019 3 AtD SC 32) by awarding heavy cost and pass...,,

¶32

3 Lea rn co nsel AD earln onb etr, rlf of the ta on r la tn ta nth a e e ts rr tade int he a a it fit d n u f h n vvr it pet t oertaln rnq ln I,artic la t, tot he serviclrC fl rde red bv Detitroner with the resDon en erein for rrI )re thana ec d c a o r s n t[:d for the rel ef s ra e fo tn h t rt titi n

¶33

PE SED H R c R I c o DC N L I

¶34

¶35

SN, J

¶36

Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subiect issue in the oresent case is squarely covered bv the order of this Court, dated O8.O9.2O1O Dassed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 reporled in 2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O, dated 10.06.2013 and also order.^jated L9,O9-2JJ12 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2OL7 reoorted in 2o1a^{(2) ALD} Paqe 282 and also the order dated 2L.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reDo in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379.

¶37

Learned standinq counsel appeari[q on behalf of the resoondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the

¶38

!oner -forth in the resent W Pe been addressed to the resDondents herein as on date and therefore, the oetitioner cannot comolain inaction on the n res I :l n h in in nsiderin the rt the oetitioner and hence, th relief as Draved for bv the oetitioner in the oresent Wit Detition can not be oranted and no Mandamus can be issued aqaanst the resoondents hereunder as souqht for and the oetitioner mav be directed to Dut-fofth the Detit oner's orievance as outforth in the oresent writ P tition bvw avo f a detailed

¶39

¶40

SN, J

¶41

re rese nta ton to the resDonde nts he tn _ and uoon el of h a! e t a on otI ,ents wou td co id e a a r an la ra w hin a rea on !e eri d

¶42

6.L rned counsel AD rinq on beh alfoft h EDetitioner d sn t u e d ssr eb the lear ed s din c un rtn be tf the res DOndent No.4

¶43

The c rti th u t d _ n (2O2O) 1 L S) in Prem Sinqhv Sta of Uttar Il'adesh and h s ra 6h d u er

¶44

"36. There are some of the employees who have r ot been regularized in spite of having rendered the-seJcr: ror:O_ 40 or more years whereas tney rrave oee;;;p;;., nuated. As they have worked in the work_cf,".g"o^-"IGbi ;hment, not against any particular project, tfreir- serviiei I ught to have been regularized under ihe^'Cou".nr.nt iir;r^-uctions a_nd even as per the decision of this Courf in' ;tate of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. ffris Court in he said decision has laid down that in case ,";i;; hr,,e been rendered for more than ten years without the cove : of the Court's order, as one_time .""rr.u, t;"- ;;;, ces be I:::1".11"!, "f^{such,emptoyees. rn $re' racti J t . .ur",} rnose employees who have worked for ten years ,r more :l9r.lq^{hg.r" beenregularized.It would} ""r U" i r rper ro regulate them for consideration of regularization l,: otners have been regularized, we direct tfiJ tf,Ei-r"ruces be treated as a regular one. However. it is made i r ar that they shall not be entiUed to claiming unV Ar", of lrr erence in wages had they been continu6d in service -r gularly

¶45

¶46

SN, J

¶47

before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the^pension as if they have retired from the reqular establashment and the services n b t rI h enter the work-ch roed establishment shall e counted as oualifvino service for DUroose of oension."

¶48

The Aoex Court in the case of Dha rwad District^PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association^Vs. State^of Karnataka reD rted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid orinciole h the S er n em orar adhoc se ice for lono oeriod and have to treat^such oersons as reqular one.

¶49

Para h f d m f heA ex in the S te of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi dated 10.o4.2006 reoorted in^(2o(J6 )4SCClis extracted hereunder:-

¶50

"53. One asoect needs to be cla rified. There^{mav be} where irre u Iar intments n aI aooointments) as exolai ed in S.V.^Naravanaooa 1 scR 128 n unda 1 72 ccc 409 I rn/ EN N.atr. an rro 7ol 4 \ sc^a<n 7 t and referred to in oara 1 5a bove of dulv^oualified Ita r. rc at lt rc ir drr n l^li on v n^+riar sts t?t R h + hav been made and the emDlovees have^{coninued to} work for ten vears or more but^withoutthe anterven ion of orders of the courts or^of ribunals. The^q estion of reoularization of the^{services ofsuch} emolo ees mav hav^e to be consider^{ed on meritsln} f he liathtof fha n rItl !es^catlla.l Prr-r this f ^r rrt in th

¶51

¶52

SN, J

¶53

sI tadqmseste enGovbot vefnernmefthaenrrt nttoandexta dinth r ntthin elinsl rumentalitiesof hIndta, thets s o k n !; a .one-time e e u I Iv AD DOi n w o ew r or 1 re in dulv n u f! co r b n ls o o ordersoft he lar cr n()'en_ io fill urethosea vacant sanction osts at ou!re tt) b fit edu c h t r d ilv w qe b n n we ust be set in lo wit ln n I a €

¶54

T e t f cl 20.L2.2024. d 2 2 L w t 1 f Ani a nd others v Unio f n taa d o e and I he retevant a hN s 2 1 4 2 7 n 2 eextract d

¶55

here u nd er:

¶56

..1_r:.^{ou..pta9 being tabetted} as^,,part_ ime l_1_kgT"l,'^{rhe appefiants perto.-[J'l,t,ese} essentiat tasks on a daily inJ'"o-itln. orc basis over extensive periods, ians-in;"i -orn over a decade to nearly two'aecaies] .i ,"i. :19_19"-"1t^{was not sporadi.} oi-t"rip., u.y rn nature, -.r,i,,-' instead, i;T': il':"$;ffii[::t,;"ot ""a ii,? associated with sanctioned posts.- f,roi"!,r r"., the respondents did ;iHrd;' ..1=iin". personnel for the appeuants^-t.nr."-,t" jffi:?r"iH[, Iff indispensabte nature of th;;;;;;;: "'"

¶57

at t e t lar n I lat h n T en fth w r db t : 3S'he

¶58

¶59

SN, J

¶60

apoellants was^perennial and fundamental to the functioninq 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.

¶61

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

¶62

While the judgment in Uma Devi^(supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are

¶63

¶64

SN, J

¶65

oFten misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of lon g serving employeet; This judgment aimed to distinguish between "il egal" and "irregular" appointrr ents. I e rca eld th €(!r i ln r ul ra oi m ts h e en :d in d an o d a rued tr ould )neHowever, the laudable intr: rt of the judgment is being subverted when instit.t :ion s rely on its dicta to indiscrimi nately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where lheir appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to proced ural formalities. Goverrl n ent departnrents (supra) to often arguecite that no the judgment vested in Umari9rl DeVito ees regularizati on exists for tempora ry emplol overlooki ng the judgment's e)( rlicit a ckncr,,ledg ment of cases where reg u la riza tic nis appropriate. )rts rm w ntzrn ita tn em lo es oh ave|cIY r n r da en bt rva s !^ver decades.

¶66

In light of these considerations, ir our 9?!ni9n,^{it isimperative forgovl.nr ent} departments to lead by example in pr-ovidin(l fair and stable employment. Engaging *o.t"ii ',-,r u temporary basis for extended peiioOs, eife,: atty when their rotes are integral to tfre orian-iiati ,n,s functioning, not only contravenes iriternat,r nal raDour standards but also exposes the organiztr ion to legal challenges and undermirr"s d-p1., ,"" morale. By ensuring fair employnt :nt practices, government institutions',,.. reduce the burden of unnecessary iiiigati ln, promote job security, and upholi he principles of justice and fairness that il ey are meant to embody. This approach alil ns with international standards - and ,"is a

¶67

¶68

SN, J

¶69

positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶70

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:

¶71

i. The termination orders dated 27.LO.2Ol8 are^quashed ;

¶72

aa. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their servtces reou a rised forthwith. l{arerarrar i h !lants^clr ll rrzrt lro entitled to anv Decuntarv benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to co nuitv of services fo r tha |c1 nrl narind an^tl lra ca m A would counted for their Dostlr I benefi

¶73

The Judoment of the ADex Court dated 31.01.²⁰²⁵ reoorted in 2O25 rNsc 144^a rrsHRIP AL AND ANOTHER V. AR NI AM GHAZ articu h relevan r 1 19 are extr r und

¶74

"15. It is manifest that the Aooellant Work^men continuouslv rendered their services over severa! r metames ore t ecade Even if rtain muster roll were not oroduced i n ful!, the Em IIover's failure t furnish such record s- dasnite .l lr^pr'j aons tar do rErat-allo llrrc , n adve r.ca

¶75

¶76

SN, J

¶77

inference un der well-establishr lt our I UrtSDrudence. Indian labour lawst nI^!v disfavors DErDet ual ailv-wa eor contractual n(I toeme nts in ctrc umsta nces where thew ork iSD 5^rmanent in nature. Morallv and leoal !v, wor er!; ho ulfil o ot un r ut ts arI after vear n R ed su m s .1^lisoensable, particularlv in the absence of a oenuinl ntra r aoree ent. At this juncture, it would be il >propriate to recall the broader critiq ue of indefinite "temporary,, employment practices as done by a recent j rdgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of fndia in he following paragraphs:

¶78

-'22. The pervasive misuse of temporarl, employment contracts, as exemplified in this cai< ,^reflects a broader systemic issue that adve;ely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy l- i s led to an in-crease in precarious Employmeni ar 'angements, often characterized by lack of^'benefits, ob security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and r n de rmin ing labour standards. Goveinment institutio. s, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairnes:; and justice, bear an even greater responsibility ii, avoid such exploitative employment practices. ^ hen public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrinr lntal trends observed in the gig economy but 3 so sets a concerning precedent that can erode publ c trust in governmental operations.

¶79

It is a disconcerting reality tha, temporary :TI]"y^"^"^=, _^{particuI a rtyi n g overn m e n rn siif utions,} often race multifaceted forms of exploitt tion. While the foundationat purpose of temporaiy .,, ,iiult, ,uy

¶80

¶81

SN, J

¶82

have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These^practices manifestⁱⁿ several ways:

¶83

oM suse of "Te m I!() rarv Labels: Emnlovees enoaoed fo work that is essentia recurrtno. n inte ral to f n institutio are often labelled as "tem orarv" or "contractual," even en their roles mirror those of reoular emDloYe es. Such misclassific tion deorives work rso f the secur! and b h re ula emolovees are entitled to, desoite^performinq identical tasks.

¶84

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

¶85

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

¶86

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health^insurance,

¶87

¶88

SN, J

¶89

and paid leave, even when their ten u re spans decades. This lack of social security ;ubjects them and their families to undue hardshipr especially in cases of illness, retirement, c I u nforeseen circu msta nces.,,

¶90

The High Court did acknowledge ti e Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. )onsequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wagt:; with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrette bly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant \crkmen were left in a marginaily improved yet stiil un<r:rtain status. While the High Court recognized the import rnce of their work and hinted at eventual regularization it Failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningf_ back wages commensurate with the degree of statu _, rry violation evident on record.

¶91

In light of these considerations, th: Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmer stands in violation of the most basic labour law princip ( s. Once it is established that their services were termiri ted without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U, ,. Industrial Dispqtes Act, L947, and that thev were 1 no aqed r-n e nna ta th e worker ca nnot be I a n R w [: concerns tc alb d n m ;t ce wt u tr m der ta :^r concerns d e he m o r u l^rblioations or e equitable entitlements. Ind d, a li ita on c n he leqitimate

¶92

¶93

SN, J

¶94

riqhts of workmen who h ve served continuouslv in de facto reoular roles r an extended oeriod.

¶95

The imouqned order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to future dailv-waqe enqaqement without continuitv or meaninqful back waqes, is hereby set aside with the followinq directions:

¶96

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

¶97

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this^judgment. Their entire^period of absence^(from the date oJ termination until actual reanstatement) shall be counted for continuitv of service and all conseouential benefits, such as senioritv and ti I romotions if

¶98

II[. 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.

¶99

IV. The Resoondent Em l, lover ts d rected to anataate a fair and transDa rent Drocess for reqularizinq the Aopellant Workmen within six

¶100

¶101

SN, J

¶102

n sf te f rn a! e ent dulv n d r at e ha^rr : performed n tcr uti a tn (D rmanent sts. fn a no ula riz atron, th e I o IM L cational or

¶103

D cedur crr rra r cti ell if such w n ra li:d to the A oellant w rk en or to si ila '!v situated t m e in th

¶104

T,] the extent that sanctionedvaca ct for such duties exist

¶105

a th R o en Err oloYer s all ex^pedi te all nece sarv administr titr e Drocesses

¶106

n t !o e o ( es are not tn d :s co trarv to u n I o s

¶107

In view of the above, the appeal(s) .ited by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,,

¶108

L2. T c n en o di n (2OL7 ) 1 s^pre me CourtCases 14a inState of Puni ab and hers v J I P <t 54 an it sub- ar s 1 2 t m n b rv s urrr ler

¶109

"54 "The Futt Bench of the High Court, whire adjudicating upon the above controv:r?y hgd^-conctudid, tr:., t temporary employees were not entitted io tn" iiniiiriZr ti= regutar payscale, merely for the reason, that the activities c )rried on by 1"^:!I:.y:n":Znd.^{resutaremptoyees*.;-;;;;i;;.7 te rutt} bench nowever, made two exceDtions. Temporary eipto, )es, who felt in either of the two exceptions, ..i niil .ntitt",t to wages at t!.:!,:!ru. of the pay-scatu iru*i o,y-rir;i;';';;. )toyees. rhe ?:=l!,:r?.*9.rded^{by the fuil nencn'or-iii-ui|} Court in the rmpugned judgment are extracted n"reurdii _'^",'

¶110

'!J). A dgily wager, ad hoc or contractL,, t appointee against the regutar sanctioned posts, ii-iii'oii[la urt.,

¶111

¶112

SN,^J

¶113

undergoing a selection process based upon 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.

¶114

2 But if dail d hoc ADDO'N 's ate not aDDo nted aoainst reoular sanctioned a,osts and their serutces^areavailed n I with n I brea^lzc hv .sfa Govern ent or its instrume ntalities for a ufficient lono oe i.e. for 7O rs- such dailv wac,e rs- ad hoc or cont, ctual ADDO I ntees shall be entitled to minimum of the reoula r oav scale wi out anv allowan on the assumotion that work of Derennra I nature is availab^{le and havino} for riod of^;i n u^ilthla created in such cateoorv of^{a,ersons. Theirclaimfor} reoulan tion. if anv- ma v have to be considered separatelv in terms of leqallv Dermissible scheme.

¶115

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

¶116

ment of the A ex rt re o in 2O1O

¶117

scc 2 7 een: state of n taka an h rs

¶118

rt n o hers tn a rticul aras 4 ds under:

¶119

4 inS f Karnataka v. Umadevi de on 70.4.20O6 reDorted in 2OO6 4 SCC 1 In t. t case a ConstitutioD 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 ofthe} Constitution should not ordinarily^{issue directions for absorption,} regularization, or^permanent continuance unless^{the recruitment} had been done in a regular mannea in terms of^the

¶120

¶121

SN. J

¶122

c^olstllutio.lal scheme; and that the coufts must be careful in u_!:!|ns that they do not.inteffen uriily ;ii th" economic arrangement of its affairs ly the State or'its ir,: trumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments tiAciititt the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory *rra"lir.'ll i ; Court further l":d_,:!:!^{a temporary, contractuat, casuat} o, a daity_wage emptoyee does not have a legal right-;;-;" ;rde permanent 72fy^{ne had been appointedin terfrs} "r-tne^{,itri,iantrutes or in} actherence of Artictes 74 and rc of tni ciisiitr:,1r. This court lit,on and the same is extracted below : however made one exception ti n" "uri''),,

¶123

a d. th av be s r a tn n e ts^' (not iltegat ,n 1'la^rayanapDa 9 a n E^a f7972(1) ,, 7 cc a7 d dt I a,ua n u t 1 miqht have n a o tin ed to I f€ t vithout the o t _ tf tribunals. s 'h f la a on f het services of a t., tsidered on e es €fl tled bv this u e the lioht f t eUnton of e State Govefn ments a dth tr s s :: toularize as e t '1 , irreoularlv n : trs ol more I n ct: :r cover of o r f a ,n should er 'ar ti ?rents are u de to th ac, nt sa cl! tned fs n eoMDlo e ThED rocess u IbeeflSr2;es are in motiwherebeinqon n ths

¶124

"5. It is evident from th9 above that there is tn exception to the general principles against ,,.gil"r;itiorl ,: tunciated in Umadevi, if the fottowing conditions ui" ritriiii','

¶125

l)^{The. emptoyee concerned shoutd} have worked for 10 years or more in dury sanctioned post without tne oineii or t rotection of

¶126

¶127

SN, J

¶128

the interim order of any court or tribunal. In^{otherwords, the} State Government or its instrumentality should^{have employed} the employee and continued him in service voluntarily^and continuously for more than ten^years.

¶129

(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.

¶130

Umadevi on n ern Govern nt ot instrumen litv. to take steDs to reoula the serryices of those irreoularlv aooointed who had ore t, without the benefit or orotection of anv interim orderc^of una meas v that s sure sef o h mth f its (rendered on 7O.4.20O6).

¶131

The term^'one-time measure' has to be^{understoodin 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^{preparea list of all} casua!, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who^{have been working} for more than ten^years without the^{interventionof cou rts and} tribunals and subject them to a^{process verificationas to} whether they are working against vacant^{postsand possessthe} requisite^{quatification} for the^post and if^{so, regularizetheir} services.

¶132

7, At the end of six months from the date^{of decisionin} umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad^{-hoc/casual employees} were still pending before Courts. ConsequentlY,^several departments and instrumentalities did^{not commencethe one-} time regularization^process. On the other^hand,some Government departments or^{instrumentalities undertookthe} one-time exercise excluding 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 entitled to be considered^{in terms of Para}

¶133

¶134

SN. J

¶135

53 of .the decision in umadevi, wi not tose tl eir right to be considered for regularization,' merely- b;;;;, -, the one-time exercise was completed witi.tout ,i'rriiri" leir cases, or ?:?i?:_,rh.,^{six, month period mentioned in pZrti} 53 of Umadevi nas expired. The one-time exercise shouli co.t ;ider all daily::1:ru?r/those^{emptoyeeswho had pui} r 70 years of cononuous service as on 70.4,2006 withot,r availing the bunals. If any protection employer had of any held interim the one_time orders exercise of "ourtr'iii)in i.il,, ; of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider tne casisii siie", mployees who were entitted to the benefit of para SS of uiaiii, the employer 'ontinuation of the, concerned one-time should consider exercise. The their one time cases exercise "6, ;;;v,/.,1 be concluded onl_y when-all the employees who are entitted'n, be considered tn terms of para 53 of umadevi, are so considirirt

¶136

a b tt1 oara 53 of U, a 2t those who a v,t n t, u , servlce ri n /Fi; of courts or n macLevi was t ir lo in view of r t at the e rt e .,/ ,etuate the v-waoe/adoeriodicallv t served for 'nstitutiona I I 'tment and rrs a all vears as on without the t b na tn ication. are 'r ,e fact that txercise of lecisiontn ,:eno lv tn m I Cfi rtitle such r in measure.te sof thea ve tn Uma vta^l i^{rularizationa one-time}

¶137

These appeals have been qending for more th.1 t four years after the decision in umaaevi. ini",app":1fii i;'i'tt panchayat, Gadag) has not considered me-^{'ci{eJ-'oi,ies} 1^onaents of

¶138

¶139

SN, J

¶140

regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi^or thereafter.

¶141

10, The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be^given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a^general one- time regularization exercisq to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless^to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of lJmadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten^years service do^not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered^for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed^of accordingly,

¶142

D t4. In the iudqment oftheA ex Court in Nihal Sinoh rnd zrtho C+-+a of Drrnir li orted lri 1^2l t4^{c.^a} 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State. whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services wene made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary

¶143

¶144

SN. J

¶145

control vested with the State. It held that the :reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Stat(, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ctr, rse to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. rt arscl refused to a t e ef nc t o n oned oosts n t e was u atr: to tita se rv ce of la e u of I Lrellants for ca es. I hel at "sa cta n nr)t fall f m heaven" and thatt e h s crea e:h em bv a j rSSeSSment of e . Ref rfl o a v el th thr1 appellants b or t em wer n ar rt t reir initial tn twa no an' er t sitha d n a e n c rd r oroced re D rescribed under thePo lice 7,861 a d _ the State a o b h rd to a a th r o nl:r tled to be s b to th s rvt f I^rermanent a R a cc rdin lr l, :re ourelv t ra ndn a atn a ncti o s created

¶146

¶147

SN, J

¶148

bv the State. It was held that the I ud oment in U madevi cannot become a licence for exD o tat onbv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oublic se rBe nks can conti n ue such a practice incon astent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitutioo-

¶149

The iudq ent of the Aoex Court re rted in 2015 SCC Online SC L797 betrneen B.Srinivasulu and othersv Nellore Municioal Corooration Rep.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra P,radesh and others. in oarticular

¶150

oaras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶151

(7) We find it difficult to accept e reasonino adoDted bv the Hioh Court. The rioht of the a ellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The aooellant have been in service of the first resoondent not onlv orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseauent t'o the issue of G 'tl The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20^years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract wo* from the appellants.

¶152

In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O, on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not^justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five^year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in^District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009⁽⁸⁾ SCC 480.

¶153

¶154

SN, J

¶155

In m ka e rh :d (2O15) 8 SCC 265. the Supreme Court hetd that .Tlr e objective behind the exception carved out in this case ur; rs to permit regularization of such appointment, which a .e irregular but not illegat, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensu e _;ecuritv of Io of tho w ei, I t eSt te ov n nd hei ln u n rfe than n I r th t a o t^g r 29 vears. This ecrsion ADDrove rlier vt ex E sed tn .L.K sari ex rac da e

¶156

1^eoorted in 2 4 7 cc 223 s! ila r w (n bv he Su Drem eCourt and it was held asf llows:

¶157

"4 7 nvt wo f the ca ori, I no of ract on the t nte t emolovees have contin ed I thett for ne tha n 7O vears n I e e a d down hv th sl. Co rt in Uma vt ase of rna ki^v Umadevi a s 4 thc7 2 n s L .,i3 nch^souarelv of the h Cou t s h 'esoondent em^plo are entitled for lief. the m ( c, nnot be I d ith s c,

¶158

¶159

SN, J

¶160

The Judgment of this Court dated O6-LZ.2OZZ passed in W.P.No.276OZ of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District,^which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court^dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024.

¶161

The iud ment of the x Court in Hari Krishn a Mandir Trust V. State of Maharash tra and Others^reoorted in AIR 2O2O SuDreme Court 3969 and in oarticul^{ar Da ra} Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶162

"100. The High Courts exercising their^{jurisdiction under} Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only^{have the} power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise^such owe h overnm ra ublic h rt f it exe sw xerct discre ion conferred u Don it bv a statute. or a rul^e. or a^poli cv decision of the Governm ent or has^exrcised such da scretaon mala fide (tro n irre! eva nt consid ration.

¶163

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

¶164

¶165

SN, J

¶166

e Division B c Co i s Judoment e 1 o 2 1 w.A. 7 |^)1O and 854 2 w it u h Ju en ed 8. 9. o10 ss w.P N 2 37 f o d rl ,48 of 2OO8

¶167

observed as under:-

¶168

"Further, it is manifest from the material on i cord that the services of the simitarty.ptaced p";r;n;-;;; apprr ached the law Courts we-re regutarized. rn"-#p"ri"ri-ioiooru, ,rn also issued various office orders/circutars i5t"o ioli)Ir989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and rarest u"ing +.).i066']1. .., urarization of casual/contract emoloyees, lt'i, ufso to-0" slen tf rt Section 25_ T of the to nct prorriuit= ,LiuiilJfo"r. ,il;" b,/ any emptoyer or workman. As can be seen from in! i".irrr :;:enario of the cases on hand. engaging the respond"ltJ ro. su.h a rong and continuous period of 11ml 9n .urruf O"rJ is'not., ng but unfair labour practice attracting rne piovisiJns-'ir'"s".,,r r 25-T of the ID Act. The learned.Sinffe luOle *nif" ."lyiig on the decisions of the Apex Courr, rightiy r,"ra ir,"i ii" .Ilona",,, s are entitted to regularization as r ea rn e-d, i, gi" I ; o e " :;::: :""1J "ii :^ ::U:l"j " r,XT'; "tr"^{i i ;} detail, in the prop6r perspective, which, in our c,) tsiclerecl view does not warrant interference i" ir,"r"-"ipuJr..,, 21. D as onB n ts Judqment d te 19.09.2017 Dassed tn .P. o. 7 2L'.1 of 20 7 e d n o18 2 LD a e 2a a 1 EI rd oara 18

¶169

observed as under:-

¶170

"16. binding throughout It is trite that the the taw declared country under by the ArticleSup -r 141 me Court of theis judgment Constitution in of Uma India. Devi,s It. is case notewortf.V (supra), ,n"i''iV *ui, .=, re ldered, time thethe provisions of Act 2 of lgg4 anO 'C.Ci. frlr. rv, 212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. ffre iupre'me^'< ourt, while denouncing the practice of regutarizitio. i"i'iu. :rption of f persons, who entered service ihrougr., 0".[ ooo=r, by giving a

¶171

¶172

SN, J

¶173

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 fora} period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also^Union of^India' The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of^{various State} enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive^{orders such as} G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, 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 regu^la rization/a bsorption^exist. Therefo re- Act 2 of 1 I 4 1OO andG^.o-Ms.No.21 dated 22.4_1994- d(!^n(rt whi^ftl e down t he raridth and thF igdgment^{in ManiuraEashinib case (supra),doesnot} lower th traiectorv of th d rections issu bv the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment^{in Uma Devi's} It is the naf narrniccih for^flra ake shelte Act 4 nd Ms. No.21 2. dated 2 _4_199 4 tod env reoula riz tiont o the oeti oners who have admittedlv. satisfied the rt ria laid .53 o Um Devi's ca (suora).

¶174

For the aForementioned reasons, order,^{dated 27.6.2017,} in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the^{Tribunal is set aside} and the writ Detition is allow with the directi n to the n nts to ns r rl he o he ti ro h va Insoectors and aoooint^the m^{subict to their sa} t^fw sfvi no the cri eria laid down in Para^{No.53of the iudomenttn} Uma Deyi's case^(suora). This^{process mustbe comoleted} within two months f rn the date rece Dtofa ov of this order."

¶175

The Division Benc ofr his Co rt rnt ts Ju a oment dated 21.O4.2O2O Dass^ed in I.^{A-Nos'.1of 2O2O in 1} c 20L9 and W.P.No.23057 of 2^o 1I r^eDo n 2020r4)ALD^Daoe

¶176

379 at oaras 45- 48 and Dara 5^O observed^{as under:-}

¶177

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been^workingon daily wage since 1990 and have^put in^{almost (30) yearsof} service by now. They have been^given minimum^{time-scale from}

¶178

¶179

SN, J

¶180

lle Iear^{2000. They have been continuously ,t} rrking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 tiif !ai ,.'

¶181

n n t 1 s e th s ot h d n D c a n r a s a n e(! tndeuDra).ke asa m e li dailv waqe o o n ( n (1O) vears 4 u o h a ln n h of e a u c T 1 i 'icbunals as atio as toon e a tn atn sts and ut u ti n e o quls art their se s, and if so, 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; lhe impugned orders dated 20.8 .2019 passed by the 1st respo i lent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of se - ,rces on onetime basis are declared as illega l, arbitrary arr, I violative of Artlcles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution c' India; the n a rt o !-time basis rv e a of ttr r petitioners I ar at a :s from the ti e of I n e B e entit!n ed hi anv o on2 w re tefrf Th sarde er_ E^;hall :ise f receiot ofshall not bebe coov of the order.,,

¶182

T ts o n hat in th re t_ case, the o ts failed to ts har th tr u tn _^examininq th ti oner or ul t zation of ti o e wh i w rki sf I rn1 3 SWeeDer n t r n der hi u st o re th _:emDorarv rv! e f e e ti er rn he a I d o t cf ful! ttme e er s ul r e I il ur s rE nt!no la st ra e a w h r odi n I m nt vt ed fro m time to

¶183

¶184

SN, J

¶185

time from the date of aoDotntment of th Detitioner tn

¶186

accordance to law.

¶187

This Court ooines that oetit oner Is entitled r consideration of Detitioner's se for orant of the relief as nrarrar{ fnr in +h n^t Wri j P^a+ ition in view of +ha observations of the Aoex Court in various iudoments (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

¶188

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

¶189

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

¶190

ix2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9

{

SN, J

(v) (2017) t scc 148 (vi) 201O(9) Scc 247 (vii) (2013) l4scC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC LtgT (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (20,'4) 7 scgzzs (xi) SLp No.32847 ot ZO24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv)^2o11 (t) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2o18(2)ALD pase I82 (xvi) 2O2o(4)ALD pise 379

¶195

d) The Division Bendh order of this (: )urt dated !.0.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7BZ of 2O1O rnd 854 of 2012 whire uproading the Judgment dated 0g.09.2010 passed in W.p.No.24977 af 2CO7 a:rd C.C.No. tB of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶196

e) The Division Bench order of this Cr urt dated L9.O9.2017 passed in W.p.No.272L7 of 2}irt (-eferred to and extracted above),

¶197

f) The Division Bench order of this Cc urt dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 c,t 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2A19 (referred to and extractr: I above).

¶198

g) In the tight of discussion and conclusion a:; arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present or der.

r.^':

SN, J

) )

f'he Writ Petition is allowed, the petitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the Detitioner for' reqularization of Detitioner's services, and also the claim of the oetitione r to treat the temoorarv services of the itioner in the las r e f w ular one for all DurDoses bv orantino Iast^qrade oav with oeriodical increments revised from time to time from the date of aooointment of the Detitioner and all conseouential benefits. dulv enclos tnoal I the relevant documents in u ort of itioner' case u t tion within a eriod of one^(O1) week from.the ate of recei of co of the order and shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformity with^prancaples of natural iustice bv providinq an opportunaty of personal hearinq to the petitioner. it Lerms of orders passed by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reDorted in 2OO6(4) SCC Paoe 1, the iudoment oassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated O8,O9.2O1O reoorted in 2O1L (1) ALO. Paqe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O6.2O13, and also as^per Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated

\ t

t-,

SN, J

L9. .20 7 ass di w- N 27 L7 f2 O7 reDOrted in 2 18 ALD a d :al e tvl ;lon Bench d en of^..,-tli -.2.1. 4 o2 Dassed ln I .No 1 t2 20 il tn w.P o.23 57of2 o19 re I 2 o 3a w ich hid atta ined finali within.€ .of^,fiiur (04) eks fr, mthed te of of thi o er dul I akinq into co sid ra n he a th I wl:rd own bv e rt' n o d en ref€:r red to and xtra a v d rti I ra Nr: 53 J he iudsm ent of the -{au,t tn the case o' Stafeof Karn ta a an d com mt t r icate the decisron to the Detitioner. Howev r,t here s.l rall be no order astocosts.

¶209

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ir.r this Writ

¶210

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶211

Sd/-S.MI LLIKARJUNA RAO ASSIl TANT REGISTRAR

¶212

//TRUE COPY// ".-7' SECTION OFFICER

¶213

Qne Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPI LLI NANDA (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusal)

¶214

¶215

1 11LR Copies.

¶216

The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law. Just :e and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶217

The Secretary, Telangana Advoc€tes Association Librar',. High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶218

4 The Principal Secretary, Panchayathral Depa(ment, Tel;r rqana Secretariat. Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶219

5 The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Departme t, Government of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of t )langana.

¶220

1. The Distrrct Collector, (Panchayats) and Chairman of Se r ction Committee,

¶221

The ChGFExeo-rtive Officer, Zllla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda District. 8. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Marriguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUCI 10.Ttrvo CCs to GP FOR SERVICES{I, Higtr Cou( for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI 11.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR MPPZPq IOPUC] 12.Two CD Copies PSK PMK

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610712025

I
<br>

ORDER