Allowed

C. Mohan v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC22 Jul 2025WP/27631/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contingent sweeper with about 37 years' full-time service sought regularization in a last grade post with time-scale benefits. Relying on Umadevi's one-time measure exception and subsequent Apex Court decisions, the court allowed the petition, directing respondents to consider his claim within four weeks after hearing him, though no past dues were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation within one week; respondents directed to examine and decide regularization claim in accordance with law within four weeks after hearing; no past dues.

C. Mohan Vs The State of Telangana and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

a32s2l

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUI-Y TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO127631 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

c' Mohan s/o chandraiah aged about s9 years. working as Tempo.ary continqent Sweeper, P. S. IValasomarar."eh"r,r*iii MLndri, Viiri"dro oirtri"r

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telanoana Ren. by.its principat Secretary, panchayathraj Department, Tetanlana seiretj.iai. Hyd;i;udl-"* ''^' "

¶13

2 The State of Telangana. Rep. by its principat Secretary, Finance and Planning Departme;t, Tetan gan'a S"cr.tiint ivJ Jiru'do.'

¶14

3 The District Collector and Chairman of Selection Committee and Minimum Wages Committee, Vikarabad District.

¶15

4 Th_e Zilla Praja Parishad, Vikarabad District, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.

¶16

5 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Bhantwara Mandal, Vikarabad District, TS.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to decrare the inaction of the respondenrs in not regurarizing the services of the petitioner nor granting rast grade time scare benefits to petitioner even after working on fu time basis from 37 long years in the contingent post without any service progress by paying pittance wage of Rs. 4000/_ per month by denying him to pay legitimate or living wages in violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act,^'l 948, Equal Remuneration Act, 1 976 and Article 14, 16, 21 , gg (d), 43, 300 (A) of our Constitution and not implementing Govt. Orders issued in GO

¶19

I I I I I :,ll,I :i:r ll i{* l,:ll ...#ilitl

¶20

Ms. No 193 GAD dated 14-03-1990 and subsequent Govt. Orders by the respondent Chief Executive Officers as unjust, unfair, totally illegal and u nconstitutional by subjecting the petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his he plessness conditions of poverty, poor social, economical political backgrourd by taking it ari advantage by the respondents and prays to direct the responcents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from thr: datr: oi rnitial appointment by applying the decision and princiol-. laid by the Honi)te Apex Court in the case of prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2C19 (1) SCC 516) and Divisron Bench of this Honbte Court in Wp No. 33936 or 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02-05-2018 (2OZO (4) ALD 329 TS (DB) followec by decisron of the Honble High Court of A.p in W.A.No. 493 of 2OZ1 dated 05-08-2021 based rrn principle laid by the Honbte Supreme Court in C.A. No. 6318 of 2015 dateC 07-08-2015 (B. Srinivasulu Vs Nellore lvlunicipal Corporat,on and rn C A. No 6798/2019 and Batch Cases dated 02-09-2019 (2019 (10) SCC 516) incluCing applying prrncrple taid by the Honbte Apex Court in C.A. No 125a ot 2018 Apex c.urt dated 23-03-2018 to reckon contrngent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other reli:ement benefits by releasrng consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments, as revised from time to time with 100(PERCENT) compensatron as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principtes and decisions of the Honble Apex court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by thrs Honble Court in the case of petitioner.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Secti.n^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed 1n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one by granting full time sweeper wages as paid to his colleague fu time Sweepers working in panchayat schools in time scale of pay of last grade post forthwith.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH.GANESH Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5:SRt K.PRADEEp REDDY,SC FOR Zp&Mp The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

SN,J

¶26

THE HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.27631 oF 2022

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

2. The oetiti o ner aooroached the Court s ekinq Draver

¶31

as under:

¶32

. "-..to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner nor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on full time basis from 37 long years in the contingent post without any service progress by paying pittance wage of Rs. 4,000/ per month by denying him to pay legitimate or living wages in violation of provisions of 14inimum Wages Act, 1948 Equal Remuneration Act 1976 and Article 14, 16,27,39 (d), 43, 300(A) of our Constitution and not implementing Govt Orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 193 GAD, dated 14.03.1990 and subsequent Govt Orders by the respondent Chief Executive Officers as unjust unfair totally illegal and unconstitutional by subjecting the petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helplessness conditions of poverty poor social economical political background by taking it as

SN.J

advantage by the respondents and prays to direct the responCents herein to treat the services oF the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointnlent by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of prem Singh Vs State or U. P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Hon'ble couit in w.p, No. 33g36 0f 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 rS (DB) follo,led by decrsion of the Hon'ble High Court of A.p jn W.A.No 483 of 2021, dated 05.08.2021 based on principli-. laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C.A.No 6318 of 2015 dated 07.08.2015, B Srinivasulu Vs Nellore lvlunicipal Corporation and in C.A. No. 6798/2019 and Batch Cases dated 02.09.2019 (20i9 (10) SCC 516) including applying principle laid by the Honble Apex Court in C.A.No.1254 of 2018 Apex Court dated 23.03.2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments as revised from time to time w,th 100% compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 19.02.2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying rhe aforesaid principles and decisions of the Honble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Honble Court in the case oF petition er and pass....."

¶37

Learned cou nse I a DDea ri nqon ehalf of the Detitioner olacinq reliance on the averments made in the affidavit fil dins DDort oftheo resent rit oeti tion I tnln tn icu la r oth ervtce ren red Deti tioner with the resoond ents herein for more th ana

SN,J

decade contends that the^petitioner is entitled for the relief as Draved for in the Dresent writ Detitio n.

¶43

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

¶44

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

¶45

Learned counsel apDearinq on behalf of the e ati ner submits hat the sub ect iss e u rel covered b the order o 2 1 ed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 r or 2011f 1) ALD. Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O. dated 1O.O6.2O13 and a so order dated 19. o9.20L7 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2Ol7 re DOrted in 2018⁽²⁾ ALD Paoe 282 and also the order d ated 2L.O4.2 O2O oassed in W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reoo ed in 2O2O⁽ 4 ) ALD Paoe 379.

¶46

Learned standinq coun I aooearinq on behalf of the n N 4 u mits tha t rt vance of th ner ut-forth in the Wri P tition had n been addressed to the res Dond ents herein sonda tea nd therefore, the Detitioner can ot comolain inaction on the of res ndent herein i c rieva nce the oetitioner and hence, the relief as Draved for bv the

¶47

¶48

s.J

¶49

e roner tn h r sen wit n c nn t e r nt d an no M nda m sca n be is U da at st t r n ent hereu nder s sou ht for nd the e n r a e directed oDU t-forth the petittoner's q rae an as utt hin rese n Wri Pe tion w d it re s n a ton t th re n ent h r ln d u n receiDtof the said reD rese ntatron the re SD ondentswou td con sider the sa me tn accord a nce to law with in a rea n ble errod.

¶50

6.L earned coun se lao D ea ri nq on beha lf of theoetitioner o sn otdi ut h s id u m ss o m d h arn d ta tn o nse arin nb h lfo h s e t No.4

¶51

7,7 A xc u t in the u m n ln 2 2 1 s L s n Pre m si h v t fU a Pr d sh n oth s a ar 6h lda n er:

¶52

"36. There are some of tt regularized,"lp,i"'"ri"r]e -employees^who have not been rendered the services for 3040 or more ,";;;;:;"1:ng as r:ey n JvL *".1'"o'',X"?#i)^1,""^t^b-""" .u^peran nuated. ';^{tc-^worK-chdrled} establishment, not against "., ;;;;r;;. have^-been ."E,1,J#"0' ,"."31"J^tj''^ll:'t^services ought to and even u,^-o". in" i".,.,"i'^{."r.inl:rH:1.} lirg,:?,J":;

I \

SN,J

Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case servicei haue Oeen rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the serv-ices be 539ytanzea,^{of such. employees. In the facts of the case,} those employees who have worked for ten years or more shou,ld have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that tneir services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regu larly before attaining the age of su perannuation. They sha ll be entitled to receive the pensio n as if they have retired from the requl r esta blishm ent andth servl ces rendere bvt hem riqht from theda thev entered th wor h r d bti en all c ed ali rc r r os en

¶57

Th A c rt in the ase fDh adD stri PWD L ra Dai w e ees o onv s te f K rn at are orte in1 90 2 sc e 6 lai rtn le th tth Sta sh uld n tk a son tem or or hoc servi ef lon r od h vet rea uch on sr ular ne.

¶58

Pa ra No.5 3oft he of the i dqment of the ADex Court I the tat fK na oth v Um evt ted 1 o4.2 o6 or din 2 4 CCl is ra hereund er: -

¶59

¶60

SN.J

¶61

5 3 o nea s nect needs to be clarified. There mav he cases where irreqular aoooi ntments ( not illeqal aDoorn tments) as exolain ed in s_vNarava na DDa 1 7 1 scR 128 R Nan a t97 1 scc 409 I and B.N. Naoa raian [ 19 79 ( 4 ) scc 5071 and referred to in oara 1 5 above. of dul oualified oersons r n dulv sa nctione d vacant oosts mioht have been made and the emol ovees have continued to work for ten ears or moreb ut withou tt he + rnte rven to n of orders of the courts or of tribu na ls. The ouestion of req u la rization of the services of such emol o ees mav have to be considered on merits in iha ti ht of the at fln n settled^l'rw t^{hcl^} ou rt tn^tha ca ses abovereferred to and in the lioh of this iudqment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrum enta Iities sho U d ta ke ste Dsto reou larize as a one-time meas ure the services of uch irreoularlv a pointed, ho have work for ten ear r re in dul sa n cti oned Dosts but notu nder cover of ord rs of the cou rts or of tribunals and should further en sure that reo ular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts t at reouire to be filled uo. in cases where temporarv emplov ees or dailv waqers are bein^q now emoloved. The Drocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. ....

¶62

The i ud o ment of thEA Dex Court dated 20.12.2024. re oorted in 2()24 LawSuit(S C) 1209 an Jaooo Anita and others v. Uni on of India and others. and the releva nt r h Nos,12 13 24 26 27 d28aree t hereunder:

¶63

"12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from

---'-'=_

r.da.

":ffi

SN,J

over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature. instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typ'ically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover. the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶71

The clai mbv the resoond ents that the ese naturew enof ther work lar oets rflaormed m bv thea AD ella nts was e rennial and funda menta Ito fun IOntn of he t ces. The recurring nature of these d u ties necessitates the ir classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

¶72

The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby

s.i

rncreasing th eir profits. This judgment underscores the principl e that the nature of the work performed , rather than the labe assig ncd to the worker should determine employ ment status and the co rresponding rights and benefi ts. It hi hti ht th udi ct role i r tif tn s ch mlsclass if ications a nd ens nnq t at w rke rs receivefa tr treat ment

¶77

While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ens ure a ppointments adhered to conslitution a I principles, it rs regrettable that its princi ples are often misinterpreted or misapplied t o deny legitimate cla ims of long serving em ployees. This judg ment a i med to d isting u ish between "illegal" and " irreg ular" appointments I c te rl il held a em e tn I rre lar a orn m nts h re n ed n s c on os dh rv r st r T However, the laudable intent of the judgment is bei ng subverted when institutions rely on its d icta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees/ even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merel y lack adherence to proc edu ra I formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to a rgue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment' S ex p licit acknowledgment of ca ses wh ere reg u larization is appropriate. o r decades.

¶78

In lighr of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair

.,1

SN,J

and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended^-peiiods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization,s functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines dmployee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and seti a posative precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶83

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

¶84

i. The termination orders dated 27 . LO.2OlB are quashed; lt. T e aD ella tss a ll be ta ken a o du f an h e rce lar d for ith o ev r the nt hall t afl o an cun benefits /backwaqes rth e oeri od th vhave not worked for butwould be enti led toco tinui of servi ces f rth id er! an th m would cou nted rth err stre iral nefi

¶85

J of e rt ted o o2 o tn 2 IN 144 n" IP A o N ERv

¶86

¶87

SN-J

¶88

NA GAR NIGAM, GHAZIA BAD", iN OA rticular, the relevant Dara Nos.1 5to19 are extracted hereu nder:

¶89

*15. It i mant est h tth A an Workm n continuouslv ren dered their se rvtces over sev ral rs s etimes nnrn more th nad a de. Even if ertainmu ter roll wer not ro uced i n full Em o r's f et fur ish uch rec rdses dir ron tod so-allow s n adverse inferen ce und er well-esta blished labour iuris^pru dence , Ind ian labo ur law stron o lv disfavo rs Eer etu tdailv-wa qeorc tract ual enqaqem ents in ct u mstances where the work is oer mane nt in na re. ra ll an all f ers who ulfil on ornq muntct al requ rrements vea r after vear cannot be dis issed summarilv asd i soen sa ble, ar la rl in th abs eofa uln con r ctor aoreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indetinite ..temporary,, employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in laggo v. Union of fndia in the Following parag raphs:

¶90

"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 employmenI arrangements, often characterized by lack oF benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining

SN,J

I il I

labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles oF fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

¶95

It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2OZ4 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

¶96

. Misuse of "TemD orarv" Labels: Emo vees n a rw ha sen cu rr and i nteo ra I to the fu nction i no of an institution are often labelled as temoora f v or co ntractu al even when their roles m i rror e fr ular lo iscl ifica de nv s work of dioni secu ritv. and benefits that reoular m esa titled des f r tn ide tical tasks.

¶97

. 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

I I I l

SN,.I

ilil1;7:i#?,.uli"'tu^{their contriburionsbeins}

¶102

. Using Ou tsourcin q inc.easiisry ie;;;iil:^{as ashierd: Institutions} I Tii r[ i ffi [ I#i,,"j"]fl :'r'::ir "?:ir'# :;,:i o.rv p"ip"Lui;r";;;r:l:1,^{another'rhis pr-actice} not u o u i o u iuiu" "iiJJ i: i,,?,,.:: i#", 3 t1?, Sil. i:, :# regu ta r employment.

¶103

. Denial of Basic Rights and B€nefits: Tpm. emptoyees are often o."nieJ" r,Iri,..,.,.J",u,"Tff#il such as pension, providenr ;rr;;;;;lJ;.in#un.u, wn e n tne,.",un,,.J "',ou n, 5li. o!',io r,|i,' ]3:',],:i securitv subjects them and their r.riilt ,; ;"""t1:] :[h;il]i,F:,:.^{:ff .H::i:=' j; "ii#i.ii,".l}

¶104

The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations . Consequentiy, it ordered re_engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum p ay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were ieft in a marginally improved y et still uncertain sta tus. While the High Court recognized the importance of thetr work and hinted at eventual re gula rization, it failed to afford them continuity of service o r meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree evtdent on record. of statutory violation

¶105

L7. In light of thesr discontinuarion or the ffl:"J:til;_j:: TH]":; violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without

!ElE*&.i* -^.

SN,J

1i I I I

adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were engaoed in essentia l, oe ren nial du ties. these workers canno be rel ated O DETDetual u ncerta intv. While con cerns of municiDal budo tan dco MDliance with recruitmen t rules erit co nsidera tion. su ch con cerns

¶111

d olv heE lo fst o a ns or neoateeo u ita ble ent tlements I ndeed. a !i ta can n t rum t el itima

¶112

flo tsofw orkme n who h ve served con lnuo uslv in defacto re ular ro les for an exte nded oe riod.

¶113

1 Th u d r f he Hi h o to h extent th v con ne the ADDeI lant Workme to fu ure -w a twi hou on me a n inof I back waoes, as herebv t asid ewith the wl dir ron

¶114

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.

¶115

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duti es they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Th ir enti Derl dofa sence (from he da of te i nation until actual reinstatem ent) shall be

¶116

¶117

SN.,I

¶118

counted for contanuitv of service and all con seo u entia I benefits. such as seniority and elioibilitv for or motions, if anv.

¶119

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Worknren shall be entitled to 5070 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.

¶120

IV. The Respondent Emolover is directed to initiate a and transparent rocess for reo u la rizin o the Aooellant Workme n within six months from the date of reinsta ment, dulv co n siderin o the fact that thev hav pe rfo rm ed oerennial municioal duties akin to Dermanent Dosts. In assessinq reoularization, the Emolover hall not imoose educational or oroced u ra I criteria retroactivelv if such reouirements were ever aoolied to the Aooellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reo ular emolovees in the oast. To the extent that sanctio ned vacancies for such d uties exist or are reoui red, the Resoondent E olover shall exoedite all n ecessary administrati ve Drocesses to ensure hese lonqtime emolov es are not ind efi n itelv retained on dailv waoes contra rv to statutorv and e^quitable norms.

¶121

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."

¶122

L2. The A Dex Court in a iudo ent reDorted in^(20L7) L Suo reme Cou rt Cases 148. i State of Puniab and others

¶123

¶124

SN,J

¶125

vs it n h n th r at ras 4 u ar 2 h id d m n serv d d

¶126

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, white adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitted to the minimum of the regutar pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. ine fult bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employ:ees, who fe ,::,:!"_f of the-two exceptions, were heti entittea rc wages at Lne mtntmum ol the pay_scale drawn by regutar employeel. The exceptions recorded by the fu bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: _

¶127

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upo'n' fairness and egullily of opportunity to all other etigible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the reguiar pay scale from the date of engagement

¶128

t e d c t I d n a th ces re I n I th t, b ks th s r s en iti, r t lonct Den t.e. for 70 vears. such dailv oers. ad n c a h il ni m r ou e SU n a f n ln t le hav d 'h f h c,feated I such catedorv of rsons. Their claim for ,a a m ha to con e , r, I, m em

¶129

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

SN,J

The iudoment of the ADex Court reDorted in 2010(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, Paras4to9reads as under

¶134

The decision in State o rnat,aka v. Umade vt was rendered on 10.4.2 0p6 re orted in 2006 4) SCC 1 ). In that case. a e^{onstitutiel.Beneh} of this Court held that appointments made without followtng the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their sen/ice permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution shctuld not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manneL in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the cou rts must be careful in ensuring that they do not inter-fere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the state or its instru menta lities, 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 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

¶135

"53, One asDect needs to be clarified. lh ere mav be cases where irreaular aDDointments (not illeqal a DDoint ents) as exDlained in S.V. Na vanaDDa 6 7 scR , an un 72 7 SCC 4091 and B.N. Naqaraian 17979 G) Scc 5071 and referred to in Dara 75 abo ve, of dulv sualified e ons , tlw <art?li6 n d vacan ttt itr h tha been made nd the emplovees have continued to rte fl t a2 Fc nt al,ore h,,; tttitlr out intervention of orders of the courB or of tribunals. The ouestio of reqularization of the services of such emDlovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the^principles settled bv this Court in the cases above nd in the lisht

¶136

¶137

SN.J

¶138

of this iudoment. In th t context, the Union of India. the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steDs to reqularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreoularlv te have r +a6 trarr s in lalv sanctioned^posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should fttrl-har an<rrr:a fhzrraatrlar rparrritftaarat< arp undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that reouire to be filled up, in cases where temDorarv emDlovees or daitv waoers are beino now emDloved. The^p rocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. ....

¶139

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

¶140

(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 should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶141

(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.

¶142

Government , made or instrumentalitv, sts a u to take steps to reoularize the services of those irreqularlv aDDointed m s had se mo without the benefit oF Drotection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevi. directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months m the date of iE decision (rendered on 7O.4.2006).

I t iI

SN,]

The ternt 'one_time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective. This ,woutd normally i"ui-in"t after the decis io n i n u madevi. "rrn aepu ii"i ;;' ;r' ;:;;' i'ristru menta tity shoutd undertake a one_time .r;rr;; ;;;;;pa're a tist of ail casual, daity-waqe or ad hoc ,employees ni nJiu Leen working ror more than ten years withoul i;;;;;"";:;;; Lr courts and tribunals ar,d subiect them .to a process viriflation as to .^/hetllr the./ are working against vacant posts- aii porru tn" :ZTi::: qu)tificaron ror tlhe pori*tJ ii-ro,'rl"s,ru,ize rheir

¶147

At the end of six m?n.th: from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily_wis"ii-nJi)i"ruat emptoyees were . stilt Dending before .Couis. c"ii"qrirttv, severat departments and tnstrumentalities did ,ii'i.ii-riurr" the one_ ttrne- regularization process. On the other.- nand, some covernment departments,or. instrum,eitaiiies unaertoot< tne consideration one-time exercise exctuding either on the ground that ,"irZii theircur{r.,*uru 'Zri,or"u, pendingrrom tn courts or due to sheer.gvlrsight. In such'iirlimstances, the emptoyees w4o were entitted t.-b; ;o:r;;;;;'ii,iurm of para s3 of the decision in umadevi, *iti ,;;-;;; ;;teir risnt to be c^oysid.ered for regu ta riza tio.n, rnsTslr- 6.ii"rL'-,in. one_time exercise was compreted witho,,r- l)i,.,iill1'... . because the six month ,.-y:'!yt .considering^{their cases'} or n u' . r p i ui wage/ad hoc/those - ; r' ; Z emptoyees ; ! i,",i : l: -2, :,'::' ; 1 2[, i ":"", :,t :t !,f i: ; ; : .^{ytlo_haA- iut"'ir'\oyears} of conttnuous service as on .10.4.200i- ;i;";; avaiting the protection of any interim orders oi ir"ii'2, "triOirnats. If any emptoyer had hetd the on?.tim.9 .ruiri'ini"r.,JZ, p"ra s3 of umadevi, but did not consider th" ,;r;;;;';;;",i,iptoyu., *no were entiued to the benefit of para 53 "iuiiJiri,,,,ine emptoyer concerned shoutd consider their casesitri, Ji "'Lirtinuation of the one-time exercise. The one.time exeitiie iii-ie conctuaea ?!t!^{when-a!t theemptoyee,s} *n" "n-iitiilJ'io'ie consiaerea tn terms of Para S3 of lJmadevi, "r;,;;;;;;;r;."=

¶148

a e b t n di a ev ,st I , 3of e a n

l I l I I

"=i6* =-=^-- =

--:==gF

SN,J

Dractice of emDlovind rsons on dailv-waoe/adsual rl d lt reoularize them on the oround that thev have serued for more than ten vears. therebv defeatino the constitutional r rov, , recruitm n

¶155

a DDOtn tment. The true e of the direct.ton ts that all e have wo ten rs 70.4.2006^(th e date of decision in Umadevi) without the orotection of anv interim order of anv court or tribunal. in vacant aosts- Dossessrno the reouisite oualificatIon ete entitled to be cgnsidered for reqularization. The fact that the emolover has not undertaken such se of reoula rization within six months of the decision in

¶156

Uma vi or that such exe was undertak onlv in a lim t disentitle emplovees, the rioht to be considered for reoularization softh ahnva diraalian< t,ma ev, zc 2 ,arra-jilaa measure.

¶157

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 tlmadevi or thereafter.

¶158

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

¶159

2.2

¶160

SN,J

¶161

regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeat is disposed of acco rd ing ly.

¶162

In th e iudqment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinqh and oth ers v, State of Puniab reoorted in (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to ce tth f nce tha h rew re no n oned o and so there was iustifica ion for the State to util ise serva s of larqe number of eoole like the aooella ts for decades. It held th t sanctioned o sts do not fall rom

SN,J

heaven" and th t the Statehastoc eate thembva consctous choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referrin qtoU madevi, it held that the aoo ella nts etr ! n itia I before them were not arbitrarily chose aoDorn ment was not an'irreoula r' aDDointment as it had been aderna ccor ance wtth the statutorv rr roced ure

¶167

f ibed und r the Poli t 1861 the cann ot be heard to sa thatt hev are note nrirled to he absorbed into the services of the State on oermanent

¶168

basis as. accordino to it. their aooointments were ou relv temoorarv and not a ainst anv sanctioned Dosts created bvt he State. It was held tha the iudo ent in Umadevi can not become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instru menta I ities and neither the Govern ment of Puniab nor those oublic sector Ban s can continue such a oractice inconsisten t with their obl iqation to fun ron rn accorda nce with the Constitution.

¶169

The iudoment of the Aoex C urt reDorted in 2O15 C Onlin 97 Sriniv h ell reM al r nRe mma

<<-

SN,J

Nellore District. Andhra Pradesh and others, in oarticular

¶174

Daras 7 and 8 reads^as under:

¶175

(7) We find it diffic UIt to acceDt the reasoninq adopted by the Hiqh Cou rt.^The ri^qht of the aDDellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No-212 dated 22.4.1994 The aooellant have been in service of the first respondent not onlv orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of G.O. till today. The res^pondent 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:k from the appellants.

¶176

B. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not^justified. In the 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 Collecto r/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009⁽⁸⁾ SCC 4BO.

¶177

In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted⁽²⁰¹⁵⁾ a scc 265, the SuDreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to^permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emDlovment of those oersons who had served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten vears". In that case, emplovee was workino for 29^years.

¶178

¶179

SN,J

¶180

This decision aooroves

¶181

arlier view exDressed in

¶182

M.L.Kesari e acted above.

¶183

State of Jarkhand v K mal P I

¶184

t4 7 SCC 223 similar vi ww k

¶185

Supreme Court and it was held as follows :

¶186

"47.... In view of the cateoorical findins of fact on the relevant content ous, ssue that the resDondent emolovees have continued in their service for more than 7O vears continuouslv therefore, the legal orinciple laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case^(State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2OO61 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at oara 53 souarelv aDDIies to the Dresent cases. The Division Bench of the Hioh Court has riohtlv held that the respondent emolovees are entitled for the relief- the same cennot be interfered with bv this Court."

¶187

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.t2.2O22 - passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶188

The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported

¶189

¶190

SN,J

¶191

n AIR 2020 reme Court 3 69 an icul r ra

¶192

Nos.1O0 and 101 held as follows:

¶193

"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-b und to exercise such ow I wher the ernm nt or ubli au h has failed to exercrse or sw nqlv exerci d d iscretion confe rred uDon rtbvastatute, or a rul or AD olicv d ecis ion of the Gov ernmentorha s exercised such discretion mala fid ,oton i rrelevant co n sidera tio n

¶194

In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred ucon the Government or a public authority.,.

¶195

The Division Bench of this Courtinit Judo ment ted 1 .06.2 13 ed in .A.N .742 f 201 an 4

¶196

ot 2O!2 while u Dholdinq the Judo men t dated o8.o9 .2010 Das sed in W.P.No. 24377 of 20O 7 and C.C.No .48 of 200a

¶197

observed as under:-

¶198

"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 also issued various office orders/circu lars dated 20.12.19g9, 11.09.1992,

¶199

06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair-labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but irnfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25_T of the ID Act. The earned Single Judge while relying on the decisions

¶200

¶201

SN,J

¶202

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."

¶203

2L. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated L9.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2Ol7 reoorted in 2O18( 2 )ALD Dao e 282 at Dara 16 and Dara 18

¶204

observed as under:-

¶205

"16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.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 one-time a bsorption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving direclions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u larization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G,O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the Man ula Bashini's case r the tr r h dirar-tianc c<r rarf hv f ha Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's ca<e^(s u nra\ It ts t h rcfo ra not rrF rm! €C hle for tho resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 ot L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to fhc riatiti.inarc rrrhn hawa admittadlv caficfied tha criteria laid down in ParAN .53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case⁽ sttora).

'j]

2ti

SN,J

For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27,6.2017, in OA No.14.12 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ oetition is allowed with the di rection the resoo ndents to consider req ularisa tion of the services of th e D etitioners aoainst the existino v cancies of Work Insoe ctors and a DDoint them subiect to their satisfvinq the criteria laid own rn Para No.53 of the iudo ment in Uma Devi's case (suDra). This orocess ust be com leted within two month s from the date of receiot of a coDv of th is order."

¶210

The Division Bench of this Cou rt in its Jud ment dated 21.04.2 O20 oasse d in I.A.N s .1 of 2O20 in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.2 3057 of 2 19 reoorted in 2O 20(4) ALD Daqe

¶211

379 at Da ras 45 48 and oara 50 0b erved as u nde r: -

¶212

"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.

¶213

It is not known hv the st resDo ndent ha not followed the dectsron in Uma Devi'sca (suDra ), as exola i ned in M.L. Kesari's case (su ora ) nd underta ken a n m x of th of a lo h d for n e without the intervention of the Courts and bu nals on 1O.4.2OO6 and subiect them to a Drocessv ification as to whet er thev are workino aqainst vacant oos and ses te ions f r os if reqularize their services.

¶214

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for. regularization of services on onetime basis are declared as illegal. arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, L6 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resnrlnd ents are d ie ctedto reoularize n one-time basis Detitio ners'serv ces f rom the date ach of the Detitioners comD ete 10 ve rs of service on dailv waqes from the

;-*'

SN,J

ini+irl s^af ihai r ot B t^{harr cl.r|I} n t tla i.r arrv ittlt n ta I AF Th c-i,l ava.a hall lra done within two⁽ 2)^weeks from^{te date of re} iot of coDv of the order."

¶219

This Court oDines that^{inthe orsent case} the resDo dents failed to^{discharqe their dutv in exa} inino the reouest of the^{Detitionerfor} eo u la rizati nof Detitioner 's services,wh^{o is workinq as fulltime sweoer} nd fu h r c r his ttotr th te rvice of titio in the rade f full swee er as reo u a r one for I,urD ose trv o ranttno ast qrade Dav with oeriodical inc rem nt revise d from ti eto time from the date of^{aDDointment of the oetitioner, in} accorda n e to law.

¶220

This Court ooi^{nes that} etittoner is entitle for con s deration of Detitioner 's^{case for orant of the relief as} Drav d for in the Dre nt Writ Petition in vlew the erv oft A ex us men refer an r ct ve t Division Ben of this Co urt in the^{.Iudomets referred to} and extracted above.

¶221

¶222

SN,J

¶223

Takinq into consideration:-

¶224

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

¶225

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

¶226

i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2O17) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201O(9) scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2O1s) 8 SCc 26s (x) (2014) 7 SCC223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O20(4)ALD page 379

¶227

d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010

¶228

¶229

SN,J

¶230

passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶231

e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O17^(referred to and extracted above),

¶232

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and w.P.No.23057 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above).

¶233

S)^{In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at} as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order.

¶234

nt allowed th r t hth claim of t r req u la rization of^petitioner's services, and also the claim t +h a nafi+ n r treat the t rvl f h naf + n rtn hel ra de ost of w r r r n for a!! ourooses bv^qrantinq last o rade oav with oeriodical increments revised from ti e to time from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner and all conseouential benefits. dulv enclosino all the relevant documents an

¶235

SN,J

¶236

SUr)D ort of rletitioner's case as D ut forthint he resent writ Deti tio n within a period of one (01) week f rom the date of receiot of co pv of the order and the respondents chall examine and a'a't nst dar fha came rn accor da nca f.r in conformit h ct s of natural orovidino an oooortunitv of Dersonal hearinq to the Detitioner, in terms of orders passed bv the Suoreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 20O6( 4) SCC Paqe 1. the iudoment passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 dated 08.o9.2010 reoorted in 2O11⁽¹⁾ ALD. Paqe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1 .06.2013. and alsoas Der Division Bench -ludqment of this Court dated

¶237

19.O9. 2O17 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ol 2OO7 r ported in 2018(2)ALD Daqe 2A2 and also the Division Bench Judoment of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O 2O passed in I .A.Nos.1 of 2O20 in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.2305 7 of 2OL9 reoorted in 2O20(4)ALD oaoe 379 which had attained finalitv. within a oeri od of four (O4) weeks fro m the date of receiot of a coDv of this order, dulv takino into considerat on the observati ons andth e lavv laid down bv th A x Court in the various ud m n rred oa

¶238

¶239

SN,J

¶240

extra cted above), and in oarticu lar, oara No.53 of the iudom ent of the Aoex Court in the case of S te of arn v Devi dd mmunr th decision to the oetitioner. However, t ere shall be no rast ts

¶241

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶242

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶243

SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT REGISTRAR

¶244

//TRUE COPY//

¶245

ECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon'ble Mrs Justice Surcpal Nanda (for Her Ladyships Kind Perusal)^..,

¶246

To,