Allowed

Elka Yellamma v. The State of Telangana And 4 Others

Telangana HC14 Jul 2025WP/27796/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A temporary sweeper employed since 1999 sought regularisation and last-grade pay benefits after 23 years of service. Relying on Apex Court precedents on regularisation of long-serving temporary employees, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed respondents to consider and pass orders on regularisation within a fixed period, without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's regularisation claim per Apex Court precedents within a stipulated period; no costs.

Elka Yellamma Vs The State of Telangana And… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27796 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Elka Yellamma, D/o late Yellamma, W/o Venkataiah, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Temporary Sweeper, P.S. Bajakunta, Narkatpally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana And rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Govt. of Telangana, Tglangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector (Panchayat), and Chairman of Minimum Wages Committee and District Selection Committee, Nalgonda District.

¶14

The, Zilla Prqa Parishad, Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.

¶15

The [Mandal Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Narkatpally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus to-direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 1010611999 nor regularizing his services even on completion of 23 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with effect from 1010O11999 to till date from time to time with

¶18

t4-.. .i.

¶19

¶20

arrears as per GO Ms. No. 687 dated o3t1or1g77 to ti[ date is highry unjust and unfair as per Articte 14, 16,21,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of constitution of lndia by subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helpless conditions of poverty, poor social, economical and political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents in continuing her on pittance wages of Rs. 1623r p.m. and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioner in the rast:grade post of sweeper as regurar one for alr purposes by granting last grade pay with periodicar increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 23 rong years without any service progress with 100% compensation on arrears of pay as per the principre laid by the Hon'bre Supreme court in c.A. No. 3416 - 344s or zoto'aatea ts-oz2019 in the case of Union of rndia vs. Avtar chand (2019 3 ALD sc 32) and in the case of^prem singh Vs. state of Up and Batch cases (reported in 201g 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37), in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of chattisgarh and Anr. in civir Appear No.1254 0f 2018, dated 2,310312018, followed by DB orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in wp No. 2678g of 2017 dated 1010812017 (DB) with cost by apprying aforesaid principre raid by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 ot our Constitution.

¶21

IA NO: 10F 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151.cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit fired in support of the p"iition, in" nign court mav oe pr"illi t" direct the respondents herein to treat the "".i""" compassionate grounds vide proc. No. E/256/99 -ot a"t"i the petitioireip;;;id;;^{-ioltibiirigs''iy"sth} ", respondent in temporary post of sweeper ., p", Go Ms. No. oaz-iaieo 0.3r'r0r1977 as regurar one from ftre oiteliapp-oi[tment i.E. from 10.06.1999 in the..last grade post forthwith by paying d"i-;;;; time scare benefits to the petitioner with periodicar increments reviied frori time to time.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.i to 3: AGp FOR SERVICES-II

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & S: SR! REDD' KATTA, SC FOR ZPP 'RADEE' MPP

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

SN, J

ORDER:

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.l to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5.

¶31

¶32

as under:

¶33

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature' of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade'post for continuously working till date in temporary post ,of Jast grade in contingent establishment on compassionate^grounds from LO/06/L}99 nor regularizing his se.rvices even on completion of 23 long years service by not extending the laSt'grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with effect from 10/06/1999 to till date from time to time with arrears as^per GO Ms No 687 dated 03/LO/Lg77 to till date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article L4, 16, 2L, 39(d),43 and 300(A) of

\ --'l
J

SN, J

Constitution of India by subjecting^petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helpless^conditions of poverty poor social economical and^political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents in continuing her on^pittance wages of^Rs L623/p m and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of^petitioner in the last grade post of sweeper as regular one for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical incrernent revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 23 long years without any service progress with 100o/o compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in c.A. No, 3416-3445 0f 2010 dated 19.02.2019 in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand⁽²⁰¹⁹ 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of UP and Batch cases reported in 2019 10 SCC 5'15 in^paras 36 and 37 in the case of Netram Sahu Vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of²⁰¹⁸ dated 23103/2018 followed by DB Orders issued in^the case of Kadar'Basha in WP.No.26788 of 2017 dated tO/O8/20t7 (DB) with cost by applyingi aforesaid principle laid by the Honourable Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and^pass..."

¶38

Learned counse! aooearino on half of the oetitioner Dlacin o reliance on the averme s made in the affidavit filed in suooort of the oresent writ oetition

¶39

¶40

SN, J

¶41

pertaininq in particular, to the services rendered by oetitioner with the respondents herein for more than a

SN, J

r I ere e as uoht nd t e tio er v be I h nt rit n bv w v ot d it on to d n herea nd u on reasonable period:

6 I

No-4

7.7 h De h tu o n tn o20 ) 1

¶50

':ml"fii,,ishrm"-.",[=ril[

SN, J

not against any pafticular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even ?s; p€r the decision gf this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court. in the said decision has laid down that in case seryices have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have^'been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their'services be treated as a r-egular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered bv them right from the day they entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as qualifying seruice for ourpose of pension."

¶55

'^ir..j]....

¶56

Literate Daily Waqe Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 199O(21 SCC Paqe 396 laid princiole that the State should not keeo a oerson in temporarv or adhoc service for lonq oeriod and have to treat such Dersons as'reoular one.

¶57

Para No.53 of the of the^judoment of the Aoex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs., Umadgvi, dated 1O.O4.2OO6 reoorted in^(2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:-

¶58

¶59

SN, J

¶60

and red to in oara 1 5 above, of dulv oualified the liqht of the-orincioles setfled bv this court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lisht of this sanctioned oosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reqular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled uo, in cases where temoorarv emplovees or daily waoeis are beinq now employed. The orocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. ....

¶61

The judqment of the Aoex court dated 2o.12.2o24reoorted in 2o24 Lawsuit(sc) 12o9 in Jagoo Anita and others v. union of rndia and others, and the relevant paraoraph Nos.12. 13- 24, 26. 27 and 2g are extracted hereunder:

¶62

*12. Despite' being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous

¶63

¶64

SN, J

¶65

basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a nEarly two deca eir engage not tc or in na'turer'tnitead, it was tr and akin to the responsibilities typically as'sociated with sanctioned^posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other peisonnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶66

The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reqular^posts lacks merit. as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aooellants was perennial and fundamental to the functionino of the offices, The recurring nature of these duties necessitatds 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 repl-aced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

¶67

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 regutar employees. The C6urt noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means

SN,.I

of avoiding paymen t of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgm ent underscores performedthe principle, rather than that thethe nature label assignedof the to workthe worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. E

¶72

While the judgment in Uma Devi (su pra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinte rpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate clai ms of long. servi ng employees. This judgment and aim ed to disti nguish between ',illegal', "irregular', appointments

¶73

However, the lauda ble intent of the judgmenE is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscrimi nately reject the claims of emp loyees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no regularization exists for tem porary vested employeesright to overlook ing the judg ment's , e4:licit acknow ledgment of cases where regulari zation is appropriate. decades.

¶74

opinion,27.^{In light of these considerations,in our} it is imperative foi^-- g;rernment

t+rfrr-

SN, J

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

¶79

28, 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:

¶80

i. The termination orders dated 27 .L0.2018 are quashed;

¶81

ii. The apoellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services reqularised forthwith. However. the appellants shall not be entitled to anv oecuniary benefits/back waoes for the period thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of -services for the said oeriod and the same would counted for t ir ocistretiral benefits."

-tr

SN, J

The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 31.O1.2025 reoorted in 2O25 INSC L44 in^*SHRfPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM GHAZIABAD" in^particular, the relevant Dara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶87

"15. It is manifest that the Apoellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several vears, sometimes soanninq more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the Emolover's failure to furnish such recordsdesoite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour iurisorudence. Indian labour law stronglv disfavors oeroetual dally-wase or cOntractual enqaoements in circumstances where the work is oermanent in nature. Morallv and legallv, workers who fulfil ongoinq municipal reouirements vear after vear cannot be dismissed summaril,v as dispensable, particularlv in the absence bf a oenuine contractor aqreement. At this^juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a regent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:

¶88

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, os 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 precario-qs employment arrangements,

,. -.-

SN, J

often characterized by^{lack of benefits, job security,} and fair treatment.^{Such practices hgve been} criticized for exploiting^{workers and undermining} labour standards. Government^{institutions, entrusted} with upholding the^{principlesof fairness and justice,} bear an even^{greaterresponsibility to avoidsuch} exploitative employment^{practices. When public} sector^'entities engage^{in misuse of temporary} contracts, it not only^{mirrors the detrimental trends} observed in the^{gig economybut also setsa} concerning^{precedent that can erode public trust in} governmental oPerations.

¶94

)S."'ft is a disconcerting^{reality that temporary} employees,^{particularly in governmentinstitutions,} often iace 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 mechanismto 2024} SCC OnLine SC 3826^{evadelong-termobligations} owed to employees.^{These practices manifestin} several ways:

¶95

oMi se of "TemDorarv" Emo ,, when eir roles rrror

¶96

identical tasks.

¶97

. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees^are frequently dismissed^{withoutcause or notice, as seen} in itre piesent case.^{This practiceunderminesthe} principles of natural^justice and^{subjectsworkers to a} state of constant insecurity,^{regardless of the quality} or duration of their^service. '^{Lack of Career} Progression: Temporary^{employeesofte-n find} themselves excluded^{from opportunities for skill}

I
sj
<br>t.tl
$L-

SN, J

development,^{promotions, or incremental pay raises.} They remain stagnant in their^{roles, creatinga} systemic disparity between^{them and their regular} counterparts, despite their^{contributions being} equally significant.

¶102

. 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 practicenot} only^perpetuates exploitation^{but also demonstrates} a deliberate effort to bypass^{the obligation to offer} regular employment.

¶103

. Denial of Basic Rights and Beneflts: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental^benefits such as^{pension, provident} fund,^{health insurance,} and paid leave, even when their^tenurespans decades. This lack of social security^subjectsthem and their families to undue^{hardship,especiallyin} cases of illness, retirement, or^unforeseen circumstances."

¶104

The High Court did acknowledge^{the Employer's} inability to^justify these abrupt^{terminations.Consequently,} it ordered re-engagement on daity^{wageswith some} measure of parity in minimum^{pay. Regrettably,this only} perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen^were left in a marginally improved^yet still uncertain^status. While the High Court recognized the^importance of^their work and hinted at eventual^{regularization,it failedto} afford them continuity^{of service or meaningful back wages} commensurate with^{the degree of statutoryviolation} evident on record.

¶105

In light of these^{considerations,the Employer's} discontinuation of the^{Appellant Workmen stands in}

SN, J

violation of the most basic labour law principles. once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to 'sgctions 6E and'6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, and that thev were enoaoed in essential pbreinial dutiei, theie wSriiers cannot be releqated to oerpetual uncertaintv. white concerns of municipal budqet and comoliance with recruitment rules merit consideration. such concerns do not absolve the Emotoyer of statutorv oblioations or neqate equitable entiUements. Indeedbureaucratic limitations cannot trumo the regitimate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended oeriod.

¶110

The imouqned order of the Hiqh Court. to the extent thev confine the Apoellant Workmen to future dailv-waoe enodriGinent without continuitv or meaninqful back waoes, is herebv set aside with the following directions:

¶111

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, L947, is declared illega!. Iil orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appeilant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶112

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed)

¶113

¶114

SN, J

¶115

within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatementl shalt be counted for continuitv of service and all consequential benefits, such as senioritv and elioibilitv for oromotions. if anv.

¶116

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

¶117

IV. The Resoondeqrt Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process foi reoularizino the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement. dulv considerinq the fact that thev have Berformed oerennial municioal duties akin to permanent oosts. fn assessino reoularization. the Employer shall not imoose educational or orocedural criteria retroactivelv if such requirements were never aBolied to tlte Apoellant Workmen o. to similarlv situated reoular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such diiti6saxist or are reouired. the Resoondent Emqloyer shail .r.o.dite all ne.essa.y administ.atire^-piocesses to^ensure these lonotime emolovees are not indefinitelv retained on daity weoes contrary to

¶118

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.',

¶119

The Apex Court in a iudoment reoorted in (2O17) 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Punjab and others

' * r-

***&il,,r-__ -

SN, J

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

¶125

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or^'contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after 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.

¶126

(2) But if daily waoers. ad hod or cdhtractual appointees are not apooinfud' aqainst regular sanctioned posts and their seruicis are availed continuously. with notional breaks- by the State

¶127

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

¶128

The iudoment of the Aoex Court reooitdd'in 2O1O(9r

'-/
-
,I
t.)

SN, J

Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any ight on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their service permanent, and the High C:urt in exercise of jurisdiction under Articie 226 of t'he Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be carefut i ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassiii of the constitutionat and statutory mandates. This Court further held . that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily_waje employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent un.less he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in aonerence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

¶134

¶135

SN, J

¶136

within six months from this date. ....

¶137

"5. ft 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 :

¶138

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 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 Sfafe Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in sentice voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶139

(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,

¶140

(rendered on 7O,4.2OOG).

¶141

The term^'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normplly meian that after the decision in lJmadevi, each departmeit or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and'prepare a list of atl casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have beein working for more than ten years without the interuention of courts and

g Y,

SN, J

tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their seruices.

¶147

At the end of six months from the date of decision in umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. consequently,^'several departments arid instrumentalities did not commence the onetime regularization process. on the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, thZ employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, wiil not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their case, or because the six month period mentioned in pira 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all dailywage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years^'of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without avaiting the prote.ction of any interim orders of courts or tribunats. Tr any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para fi ;f umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some empioyees who were entitled to tle benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, ihe'employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

SN, J

measure.

9.-These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appettant (Zita panciayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in lhmadevi or thereafter.

¶153

The Division Bench of the High court has directed that the cases of resplndents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, ,s that the Zila^panchayat,, Gactag 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) fulfiil the requirements mentioned in para s3 of lJmadevi. If they futfilt them, their seruices have to be regurarized. If such an exercise ha_s already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendency of {hese casesl 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 fulfiil the requirements of Para 53 of umadevi, their senrices ieed not be regularised. It the employees who have completed ten yiars service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribeU 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.

¶154

rn the iudoment of the Apex court in Nihal sinoh and others v. state of Punjab reoorted in (2o13) 14 scc o5, the supreme court considered the case of absorption

SN, J

of speciar porice officers appointed by the state, whose wages were paid bv Banks at whose disposal their services were made avaitabre. rt hetd that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appeilants 'emproyees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the state and disciprinary contror vested with the state. rt herd that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning "t posts for a cadre is a matter excrusivery 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. @

tt tt

---:^;-J--F=:--

SN, J

been made in accordance with the statutgrv orocedure orescribed und€r l the Police Act, 1861,^'ahd the State cannot be heard to say that thev are not entiUed to be absorbed into the services of the State on oermanent basis as, accordino to it, their apoointments were ourely bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their oblioation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

¶165

The iudoment of the Apex Court reoorted in 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municipal Corooration Reo.by its Commissioner. Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in oarticular oaras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶166

(7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the aooellants to Seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant hatre been in senrice of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 2O years

i
i

SN. J

without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶171

In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned 9.9. .on the ground that the appeilants approached the Tribunal belatedry, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstancgs, the appeal is allowed modifying-the order under appeal by directing that the appellants, serviies be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their iin" y"u, continuous seruice as was laid down by this- court in oiitrict collector/chairperson & others vs. M.L. singh & ors. 2009 (s) SCC 480,

¶172

rn Ama.kant Rai v state of Biha. reoorted (2015r g 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 iltegal, and to ensure security of emptoyment of tfros Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten yea.s". rn that case emptovee was working for 2g years. This decision apprc M.L.Kesari extracted above.

¶173

rn state of Jarkhand , Kamar prasad ,eoorted in (2o14) 7 scc 223 similaruie* *as t"ken b, th.

¶174

"41.... In ,i"* of th" ot"oori""l firding of fr.t on th" ,elerant contentious issu s

SN, J

The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.N o.276O2 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 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.20.24 in SLP No.32847 ol 2O24.

¶179

¶180

*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, has failed to exercise or has wronoly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or

SN, J

consideration.

In all such cases, the High court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compet performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a pubtic authority.,,

¶185

¶186

observed as under:-

¶187

"Fulther, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law courts wele regularized. The appettant-corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated zo.Lz.19g9, Ll.og.Lggz, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.l.2oog for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is atso to be seen Uiat 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, e3O-aSjnO the respondents for such a tong and continuous period of time on casuat basis is nothing but irnfair labour practice attracting the provisions of section 25-r of the ID Act. The learned single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex court, rightly herd that the resporidents are entifled 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 Eonsidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.,,

SN, J

I I I II l:

reported in 2ol9(?)4!D oaqe 282 at para 16 and oara t8 :'.

¶193

"16. It is trite tha.t the law declared by the supreme court is binding throughbut $re' country under Articre L4L 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 L9g4 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 absorption /regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the state Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme court is presumed to be conscious of various state enactments such as Act 2 of L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.!994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in uma Devi,s case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the states where state enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act ? of 1994 iOO ind G.O. Ms. No.2t2, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the iudgmentⁱⁿ llarjula Basllrni's case (supra), does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Suoreme Couft in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi,s case^(suora), It is, therefore, not permissibte for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the critefia l.aid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devf's case (supra),

¶194

For the aforementioned reasons, order, ?ated 21.6.20L7, in oA No.1442 of 20L4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is altowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Insp.ectors qnd. appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judoment in Uma Devi's case (supra). This process must be compteted within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

J.,,

SN, J

fhe Oivision eerich

¶199

dated 21.04.2Q20 oassed in r.A.Nos.l of 2o2o in 1of 2o19 and w.P.No.23o57 of 2o19 reoorted in 2o2o(4)Alp oaqe

¶200

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

¶201

¶202

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1gg0 and have put in almost (30) year-s 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.

¶203

48, rt is not I whv the resoondent not

¶204

reg ula rize their serwice's.

¶205

50: Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 2o.8.20L9 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for reguiarization of services on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2L of the constitution of India; tE respondents are, directed to regutarize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each o@ gB,lete 1O ye?.s of se*ice on daity wages from the initi"l dbte= of th.ir appoint-e.rt. effi gntitl.d,to "ny -oi.et"ry ."rief. The said erirtGEJhEiiE don" ithin to,(Z) *""k" fro- th" @ copy of the order."

¶206

23- This^-court opines that in the oresent case, the

¶207

respondents failed to discharEe their duty in examininq the reouest of the p

¶208

¶209

SN. J

¶210

service of the oetitioner in the last orade pgst of full time

¶211

consideration of petitioner's caqe for orant Of the relief as praved for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the

¶212

and extracted above.

¶213

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

SN, J

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

¶219

i)(2o2o) 1 SCC (L&s) (ii) 1e9o(2) scc pase 396 (iii) 2O2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2OZ4 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (zort) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) l4scc 6s (viii) 20t5 SCC Ontine SC t7g7 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (zot4) t scc 22s (xi) SLp No.3 Zg47 ot ZO24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Couft 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scC I (xiv) 2O1t (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) zo2o(4)ArD pise 379

¶220

d) The Division Bench order of this court dated 10.06.2013 passed in w.A.Nos.zgz of 2o1o and g54 of 2ol2 while uproading the Judgment dated og.o9.2o1o passed in w.p.N d-2437r of 2ooz and c.c,No.4g of 2oog (referred to and extracted above),

¶221

e) The Division Bench order of this court dated 19.09.2017 passed in w.p.No.2z2r7 of 2f,1,7 (referred to and extracted above),

SN, J

i I il!

f) The Division Bench order of this^{court dated} 21.O4.2O2O^passed in I.A.Nos.^{1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019and} w.p.No.23057 of 2O19^{(referredto and extracted.above).}

¶226

g) In the tight of discussion and conclusion^{as arrived at} as above from^{para Nos.4 to 24 of the presentorder.}

SN, J

petitioner, in terms of orders oassed bv the suoreme court in uma Devi's case reoorted in 2oo6(4r scc paqe I the judqment oaised in w.p.No.24377 of 2oo7 dated 08.o9.2o10 reported in 2011 (1r ALD paqe 234 and as confirmed in w.A.No.7g2 of 2o1o dated 1o.06.2o13- and also as oer Division Bench Judoment of this court dated 19.o9.2o17 oassed in w.p.No.27217 of 2oo7 reported in 2o18(2)ALD oaoe 282 and also the Division Bench Judoment of this court dated 21.o4.2o20 passed in r.A- os.1 of 2(J2fJ.i 1of2O 19inW .P.No.2 57 ot o19 repo'rted in 2o2o(4rALD paoe 379 which had attained finatity- within a p

¶231

of receipt of a copy consideration the observations and the law laid down by the Aoex court in the various judqments (referred to and extracted abovel iudgment ol the . Anex Court in the case of State of Karnataka % Uma Dev, and du decision to the oetitioner. However there shalt be no order as to costs.

¶232

¶233

SN, J

¶234