Allowed

Ch.Bhoodamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Aug 2025WP/28281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A full-time contingent sweeper sought regularization of her services in the last grade post with pay, increments and retiral benefits after decades of continuous work. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on regularization of long-serving irregularly appointed employees, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed consideration of her claim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit claim with documents within one week; respondents to examine and pass orders considering her regularization claim per cited precedents within four weeks; no costs.

Ch.Bhoodamma Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, IHE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2828f OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch.Bhoodamma, Wo Narsaiah, Aged about 50 years. Occ. Working as Full time contingent sweeper, Z P H S (G) Gambhira6pet, GhambiraopeilVandal, Ralanna Siricilla District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector and Chairman of Selection Committee and Minimum Wages Committee, Rajanna Siricilla District.

¶14

4 The Zilla Prala Parishad, Rajanna Siricilla District, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer

¶15

The lrlandal Parishad Development Officer, Gambhiraopet Mandal,

¶16

Rajannasiricilla District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol 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 Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from several long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment order dated.05.02.1992, as unjust, unfair, total.Jy arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16,21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in -denying^{legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementingSection 13 and} 15 of Minimum Wages Act,^{'l g4B} and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act,

¶19

'1 976 and Govt- Orders from time to time, to pay living ,. ages to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the serv < es of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appcri rtment by applying the decision and principle laid by the Honble Apex Court in I er case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench rr this Honble Court in WP No 33936 of 2O11 and Batch Cases dated 02,05-2i 18 (2020 (4)ALD 37e TS (DB) followed by decision of the Honble High Court o1 \ P. in W.A No. 483 of 2021 dated 05-08-2021 based on principle taid by the llr> rble Supreme Court in C.A, No 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23-03-2011) r.o reckon contingent servlces of petitroner for computation of qualifying servic ) to grant of pension gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing cc lsequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including penodical incre I ents. as revised fron time to time with^'1 00 7o compensation as per principle lai, by Apex Court in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 34- 3445 of 2010 anc Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) hv : pplying the aforesaic principles and decisions of the Honble Apex Court and t) vision Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Honble Court in the : r se of petitioner.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in th: circumsta nces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High O,r r.t may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in servir:e by paying on par with regularly engaged last grade employees along with pe r cdical increments as revised from time to time as per the orders granted in ll. No. 1 of 2018 in WP No. 38763 of 2018 dated 30-'10-2018 in similarly situated l tse forthwith. pend ing disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGp FOR SERVICI S-l

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRt PRADEEP REI) )y KATTA, SC FOR GRAM Pl\ TCHAYAT

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

SN,J lvp 2lt28l 2022

¶28

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.28281 oF 2022

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing^on behalf of the^petitioner, learned^{Assistant Government} Pleader for Services-I appearing on^{behalf ofthe} respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep^ReddyKatta, learned Standing Counsel appearing on^{behalf of the} respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶32

2. The^pe titioner aDD ached the Court seekino Draver

¶33

as under:

¶34

"...to issue an order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to^{declarethe action of the} Respondents in not treating the^{services of petitioner as} regular one in last^{grade post for workingfrom several long} years on full time even not^paying legitimate^{wages of Full} Time Sweeper, as^per appointment^{order dated05.O2.L992,} as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary^{and violationof Article14,} 16,2t,39 (d), 43 & 300^(A) of our^{Constitutionin denying} legitimate living wages to^petitioner by^{not implementing} Section 13 and 15 of Minimum^{WagesAct, 1948and} provisions of Equal Remuneration Acl, 1976 and Govt' Orders from time to time, to^pay livlng^{wages to petitionerand prays} to direct the Respondents^{herein to treat the servicesof the} petitioner as regular one in last^{grade post from} the^{date of} initial appointment^{by applyingthe decision and principle laid} by the Hon'ble Apex^{Court in the caseof Prem Singh Vs State} of U.P. (2019^{(1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Hon'ble} Court in WP^{No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated} 02.05.2018^{(2O2O(4) ALD 379 TS (DB)followed by decision}

¶35

¶36

SN,J \vp 28281 2022

¶37

of the fion'ble High Court of Ap. in W.A.No tB3 of 2021 dated 05.09.2021 based on principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. fZ5+ of'ZOfe Apei (:ourt, dated 23.03.2018 to reckon contingent services oi )etitioner for ::Tp:::!i",^{of quatifyins servicero} srant^{of per} sion, g ratu ity and other retirement benefits by releasinc, :onsequential increments, monetary beneflts as revised in the Iast grade fro ni time post t" rnclit,it*renq with pe riod lOOo/oica I :?T,?:nrur,:!^{as per principte taid by Apex Corr} t in the case or unton ot India Vs. Avtar Chand in i.n. ruo. - 2.76-3445 of ,t019 sc 32) 2010 & Batch Cases dated 19.02.20rS tAr;3 "i by applying the aforesaid principles 'inJ a,",i ;rons of the Hon'ble Apex Court & Division Benches ,nauil i rticle 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court rn tnu c-use of petitioner and pass..... "

¶38

3 Le ne n ar on C h tf ft he oetitroner placinq relianc on the averme nt 5 ixa_dc_!!ilIe a da it le s f e en vrit oetition perta tntnqin DA rticu la r, to th s rvtces 'en dered bv ti n w h he e n en h re r _ nore than a d cad n d th t e lon r e H dfort he ti a r f tn r e wr iti t

¶39

PERUS ED THE RE oRD:DISCUssrON AND co CLUSI N:4.L rn u ela ea onb I alf oft he er su m b t s tn _ the oresent a c e d e rd this t ;ou rt, dated 8 2 1 s d P 4 7 t2 ) reDorted tn

¶40

¶41

SN,J wp 2828t 2022

¶42

011 1 LD a 234 sc firm inW N a2 t 2010, dated 10.o 6.201 3anda lso order, dated 19.0 9,2077 Das ed in W.P.N o.272t7 of 2017 reoorted in 2018 (2) ALD P e2 and oth order ted 2 4.2 2 a tn W.P .No.23 O57 of O19 re orted n 2020(4) ALD Pao e 79.

¶43

L ed ndin coun la rln beh of resDonden t No.4 submits that the qrleva nceof the Detatione rasDUt-forth in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addr ssed to the resoonde nts her tnaso n date and th efor he tion r cann com ln tn ron the ofr on tsh ern rn onst tn h rtev ce of e ner dh ce e reli as r edf b h petiti oner in the resent Wit oetition cann otbeo ra nted dn nd us be su atn her on nts er n er s tf an the ition rm cted u h the etiti er s evan ea t- forth in the Dresent Writ Petiti on bv wav of a detailed re r tata nto n en her tn n u ecei e re e ti h re den w onsr t es et a rd c to ithi a reasonable oeri od.

r\t

SN,J rlp 2828 t 2022

Learned counsel aooearino on behatf ol .! h€_-pelitlqne[ does not disDu te the said submis sro nma el , rt he lea rned sta ndin counsel artno onb eh of ttr, : resoo n den t No.4.

¶49

Th Aoex Cou rt in the udoment reoort€ r in(2o20) 1 scc^(L&S ) in Prem Sinqh v Sta ofU ar P desh and oth ers. a para 36 heldasu nde r:

¶50

"36. There are some of the employees who har', not been regularized in spite of having rendered the serv ir ers for 3040 or more years whereas they have been supt r a nnuated. As they have worked in the work_charged est a rlish ment, not against any particular project, theii servicr ) ought to have been regularized under the Government rstructions and even as per the decision of this Court r State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court r the said decision has laid down that in case services I ave been rendered for more than ten years without the c c ver of the Court's order, as one-time measure. the s e -yices be regularized of such employees. In the facts c 'the case, those employees who have worked for ten yea T; OT more should have been regularized. It would not be t,roper^to regulate them for consideration of regularizatior l as others have been regularized, we direct that their s < rv ices be treated as a regular one. However, it is made : ear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues o ' J iFfe rence in wages had they been continued in servicr :^-egularly before attaining the age of superannuation. Thr:' shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they harl retir d an _^services I ente 2^rnted as

:..>,'-,

SN,J $tp 28281 2022

Th Aoex Court i the case of Dharwad District PWD Literat Dailv Waoe Emolovees As ociation Vs. State of Ka rnat ka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid orin ciole that the State shoul not keeo a oerson in temn ra rv or adhoc service for lonq oeriod an have to tre t such Dersons as reqular one.

¶55

Pa ra No,53 of th of the iudom ent of the Aoex Court tn the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadev , dated 10 .O4.20O6 reDorted in (2006) 4SCClis extracted

¶56

hereunder:-

¶57

"53. On asoect n eeds tobe clari fied. Ther mav he cases where irreoular aDDointments (not illeoal ent la in tn . Nar n 19 7 scR 12 R.N. N n a 1 72 o9 an B Na ar 1979 4 o7 and referredtoinD i!!? 15 above, of dulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctione vacant Dosts m qht have been made and the emo lovees have continued to work fort en vears or m orehu twi t hout the tnterven ion of orders of the courts or of ribunals. The ouestion of requlariza ion of the service s of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles ettled bv this Court in the cases a bovereferred to and in the lioh of this I ud m n^f In^t h^tf aarit text t h all nton t T ndia 1h State Governments an their instrum enta I ities sho U ld take ste DS to reo ularize a s ao e-time measure the services of such irreqularlv a oointed, ho ked n orm n dul sa ncti ned oosts but not un der ver oforde oft he

.r'l

SN.J vtp 28281 2022

co rts or of trib unals and should furthr e sure hat r ul rre r itm ts re n e nto fiil those V can san one os th re €tr ) be filled uo. ca esw ere m a ees ot dailv wa ers l'il I ustbeset in m 10. T e m tofth ex u ater, 20.1 2. 2024, r o .n 2()24 Law it L2 tn a^(o Anita and others v Unio n of India and others, and :he releva nt Daraqraoh Nos.12, 1 24, 26. 2 and 28 ,r'e e r cted

¶62

hereunder:

¶63

"12.- Despite being labefled as ,'par.: time workers," the appellants performid t hese essential tasks on a daily and conti r uo us basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades, -hei r engagement was not sporadic or tem[l )ra ry in nature, instead, it was recurrent, reE ular, and akin to the responsibitities tyf ; ca lly associated with sanctioned posts. Mori: )ver, the respondents did not engage any I ther personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶64

The claim bv the resDondents that h ew e r lar sm I :, as th natureo the work DE rmedbr t the aoD el la nts was Derennr al and funda ent rl to thnature of n these onr duties of he necessitatesc The rec L .ringtheir c.lassification as regular posts, irrespective of lrow their initial engagements were labelled. It i; also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of lrese same tasks to private agencies ifte. the

¶65

SN,J \Yp-28281 2022

¶66

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 iemporary 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 misclasslfying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors/ thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This^judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliohts the iudicia 's role in rectifvino lassif cations an n r workers receiv fa ir treatment,

¶68

While the^judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It cateooricallv hel emplovees in irreqular aDDointment re enqaqed in dulv sanctioned Do ad served

¶69

¶70

SN,J wp 28281 2022

¶71

co nttnuouslv for more than en ve rs i^rould be consi dered for re ulari tion se-^one- ttme m ea su re. However, the laudable in :, nt oF the judgment is being subverted when insti t rtions rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately reje (: the claims of employees, even in cases wher : their

¶72

appointments are not illegal, but merel y lack

¶73

adherence to procedural formalities. Gover 'r ment departments often cite the judgment in Um a Devr (supra) to argue that no vested flg tt to reg u la rization exists for temporary empl ( yees/ overlooking the judgment's (r^(olicit acknowledgment of cases where regulariza t on is approp riate. Thi selec IVE AD licatio ndi! torts the iudo ent's oirit a d our se, e( I^ivelv weaPonizinq it aoai nst em lovees who _^have renderedin d isoen sable servic s _^over decades.

¶74

In Iight of these considerations, ir our opinion, it is imperative . for goverr m ent departmenis to lead by example in providirr )Fair and stable employment. Engaging workers ona temporary basis for extended periods, espe cially when their roles are integral to the organiz: :ion's functioning, not only contravenes internit ional labour standards but also exposes the organ, ation to legal challenges and undermines emp I )yee morale. By ensuring fair emplol,r nent practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litig a tion, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach :r igns with international standards and scl sa positive precedent for the private sect< rto foltow, thereby contributang to the o,/ 3ra ll betterment of labour practices in the cotrr rtry.

¶75

In view of the above discussion and Findings, the appeals are allowed. The imprt lned orders passed by the High Court and the Tr I unal

SN,J rvp-2ll28l_2022

are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:

¶80

i. The termination orders dated 27 .70.20L8 are quashed;

¶81

ii. The appellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services requla sed forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecu n ta ry benefits/back waqes for the^period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said^period and the same would be counted for their^post- retiral benefits.ll

¶82

The Judqment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2O25 reported in 2025 INSC 144 in^*SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in^partieirlar, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶83

'15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over severa| vears, sometimes spannrrlq more than a decade. Even if certain muster rllls were not^produced in full, the Emplover's failure to furnish such recordsdespite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under . t4{elLestablished labour ufls rude Indi n labo rl w disfavo perpetual dai -w r ntractual enoaoements in circumstances work is oermanent i n

¶84

¶85

SN,J u p_28281 2022

¶86

natu re. Morallv and leqallv workers who fulfil onoolnq muntcroa !reouirement vea r _ after vear cannot be dismissed summan Iy as ( ispensa ble,

¶87

Darticularl v in the absence of a qen.uinc contractor ao ree e nt. At this juncture, it would be ir ,l)ropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinit(: "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent jrdgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in he following pa ragra phs:

¶88

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporar,/ employment contracts, as exemplified in this ca: r ,^reflectsa broader systemic issue that adv€r ;ely affects workers' rights and job security. 1r the private sector, the rise of the gig economy lr rs led to an increase in precarious employment . r rangements, often characterized by lack of benefits iob^{secu rity,} and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government instituti() s, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and^justice, bear an even greater responsibility t. avoid such exploitative employment practices. \ /hen public sector entities engage in misuse⁽⁾ temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detri r ental trends observed in the gig economy but rlso sets a concerning precedent that can erode put iic trust in governmental operations.

¶89

It is a disconcerting reality th r temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of explci ation. While the foundational purpose of temporary ,r )ntracts may have been to address short-term or se:;onal needs, they have increasingly become a mech. r ism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-terr obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

¶90

¶91

SN,J wP_)8281_202)

¶92

. Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: Emolovees enoaoed for work that is essential recu rrr n^q, and inteo ral to the functionino of an institution are often labelled as "tem orarv" or "contract ual," even when their roles mirror those of reqular emolovees. Such masclassificat on denrives workerso t the diqnitv, securitv, and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to, deso ite performinq adentical tasks.

¶93

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

¶94

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

¶95

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

¶96

¶97

SN,J wp 2828 t_2022

¶98

The High Court did acknowledge. e Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations, [)onsequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wagr s with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrett rrly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant. \ /,f rkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still urr ertain status. While the High Court recognized the impcr :a nce of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatic r , it failed to aFford them continuity of service or meaningf r back wages commensurate with the degree oF statrr ory violation evident on record.

¶99

L7. In light of these considerations, t I ) Employer's discontin uation oF the Appellant Workmr r- stands in violation of the most basic labour law princi I es. Once it is established that their services were terrr r erted without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the -^{P.I ndu} stria^I Disputes Act, 1947, and that th v were -^enoaoedin es entia oe nnial dutie s, these wo rke! s cannot be rel ated too erDetual uncertaintv wtrle concerns of muni ciDal budoeta nd co mol I ln ew ith recr uitme t rules merit con sideration, s J :h conce ns do not a bsolve the Em lover f statutor I obliqati ns or neoate equitable entitlementl , Indeed, bu rea ucratic lim itations cann t trumo tl1: leqitimate fl ts or m w hav d cor 1 :inuouslv in efa ul rol for n en e1iod.

SN,J wp]8281 2022

The imouqned order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent thev confine the Ao oellant Workmen to future dailv-waqe enoaoement without nt nuitv or meaninqfu I back waqes, is herebv set aside with the followinq d irection s:

¶104

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance^with Section^6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial^DisputesAct, 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 continuiiy in service.

¶105

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate^the Appellant Workmen in their respective^posts(or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this^judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence^(from the date of ln^af ion until tn^ctz te h}'l ch r lt ha counted for continuitv of service and al! consequenti al benefits, such as senioriW^and elioibili for oromotions if a nv.

¶106

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.

¶107

IV. The Resoondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and transoarent rocess for reoularizinq the Aooellant Workmen within six months fro the date of reinsta ment, dulv considerinq the fact that thev hav oerformed peren n I I municipal dutaes akin to oermanent

SN,J wp 2828I 2022

DOS In assessi nqr ulali zat on, the DroEm ploverced u raI shallcri eflanot iretroamDose lv(e 1 rcational afs uchor re utre ents were never apI ) ed to the A ellan w men r simiI rlv situated ular em ee nth as .^'l'r the extent hat n edv can for uc I d ties exist or er utre heR on t t.r lolover shall ex ate ne a mrni ra' VE rocesses t nsur th e lon rme lc^r ees are not tn fini r i ned dai w tr ; contrar to statutorv and eouitab le norms.

¶112

In view of the above. the appeal(:. filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeali I filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,,

¶113

L2. The Aoex Court in a iudqment reoorteq _in (2OL7 )1 Su reme Cou rt Case s 148. in State of Puniir r and ers vs Ja oi it Sinoh and oth ers t Par s54 nd ts su b-oa ras (1) (2)(3) of the said iudom ent ob erved as ! trlc-ri

¶114

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, ^^{t ite adjudicating} upon the above controversy had concludeot, lrt iemporaiT employees were not entitted to the minimum ctl \e regular pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activitic caried on by daily-wagers and regular emptoyees were simil. t The futt bench however, m3de two exceptions. Temporary erna ctyees, who fell i.: eith:t of the two exceptions, were held enttt ?d to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regutar. :,nployeJs. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of ihe l^,trh Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶115

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contrd, tual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if t,tpointed after undergoing a selection process based up,n fairness and equality of opportunity to all other elio, tre candidates,

SN,J wp-28281 2022

shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.

¶120

(2) But if dailv waeers. ad hoc or contrac tual ADD intees are not aDDointed aqainst re ular sanct,toned osts ANdth err servtce-s are e iled conti nuousl with notiona I breaks. v the tate vernme nt or fs I nstrumen lities forasu ient lono Deriod i.e. for 7O vears. such dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractual a DOtn fee shall be entitl' to minimum of the ular oav scale without anv allowances on the assum tion that work of Dere nial natu is availa le and havino work, d for such lonq oeriod of time. an eouitab le riqht ,s reoularizatiocreated in such n, if cateoan orv mav of oharsorrs.ve to be eir considecla, redfor se ratelv in terms of leqallv Dermtssible scheme.

¶121

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

¶122

Th e iudomen t of the Aoex Cou rt reDor d in 2O1 0(9) 247 een: te t arn an hers

¶123

M.L.Kesari a d othe tn Darticular, aras 4 o 9 read sas

¶124

u nder:

¶125

The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006⁽ reDorted in 2006 G) SCC 1). In that case a Constitutio n Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re_ engagement nor make their service permanenq and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance untess the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the coutts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic

¶126

¶127

SN,J wp 28281 2022

¶128

arrangement of its affairs by the State or it:; i, s:tru menta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facil,ttl e' the bypassing of the constitLttional and statutory mandates.^-, is Court fu rther held that a temporary, contractual, casuai ( . a daily-wage employee does not have a tegat right to be -, ade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the ,-t,t ) /ant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitL lion. This Court however made one exception to the above c tsition and the same is extracted below :

¶129

"53. One a spect needs to be clarifiec Ir There mav be cases where irreqular aooointmenI L (not illeoal ADDO' tmentsl as exolained tn s.u I Na ravana ooa t7967⁽⁷⁾ SCR 72A1, R.N. Nan Iundt t/ .oa f7972 (7) SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naqaraian I 7971 I (4t scc soTt and referredtoinoa ra 75 abo ve. o f_ dulv oualified ers in dul nctio vaca ! ts might have bee made and the e Dlovees hav _( -continued^to work for ten vears or more but without the inter ntion of o rders of t,he courts ! I of tr, u na ls. The ouestion of resula rization ofl I e serv es of such emo s mav have to be .! onsidered on merits in the liqht of the o rincioles ettled bv this c,ourt in the cases abovereferredto, , td in the lioht of th,s iudam ent. In that con teY t, the Union of India, the Sfate Govern ents _ _ and their i nstrumentaliti,esshould take steps t7^reoularize as a one-time measure, the services of t;1.ch irregularly apoointed, who have worked for ten- ears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not Jl,tder ver of orders of t,he courts or of tribunaI ; and should further ensure that red ular rec r ,itments are und rtaken to fill those vacant sa t :tioned Dosts that reouire to be filled uD ,n - cases where tem orarv emDlovees or dailv wac't rs are beinCT now Dloved. e^process mustb e set in motion within six months from this da te.

¶130

'5. It is evident from the above that ther,: i:; an exception to the general principles against^{'regularizattor} enunciated in . Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilted

¶131

(i) The employee concerned should have workeLt for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefi, ),- protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In o her words, the

¶132

¶133

SN,J \p _28281 ]022

¶134

State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten^years.

¶135

(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.

¶136

Umadevi s on he o-n to ke ste reoularize the servtces of those irreqularlv^aooointed lo es who r more without the benefit or Drotection of anv in rim orders of rts or tribu n -tim m v, at such ure must be motion within six months from the date of its^decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OO6).

¶137

The term^'one-time measure' has to be understood in^its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each^{instrumentalitY} should undertake a one-time exercise and^prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees^{whohave been working} for more than ten years without the intervention of^{cou rts} and tribunals and subject them to a^{process verification} as^to whether they are working against vacant^posts and^possessthe requisite qualification for the^post and if so, regularize^their services.

¶138

At the end of six months from the date of^decisionin IJmadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual^employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently,^several departments and instru mentalities did not commence^{the one-} time 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, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para

¶139

¶140

SN,J wp 28281-2022

¶141

53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose , e,ir right to be considered for regularization, merely becaus r the one_time exercise was completed without considerintT t,eir cases, or because the six month period mentioned in p,tr, .r3 of lhmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should t t sider all daitywag e/ad hoc/ those employees who had put t, 1O years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 witho,_ availrng the protection of any interim orders of courts ot t i,5unats. 1f any employer had held the one-time exercise in ter-, s of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of som,: :mployees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umatlt, l, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as; ) continua on of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise fi tt be concluded only when all the employees who are entttled \ be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so consider j t.

¶142

8, The object behind the said direction .1 1^para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure l! at those who have out in more than ten years oi cinl!lUO us servrce without the rotecti'on of anv i nter'im orde,t s of co urts or tribunals. before the te of ec,st ln Umadevi was nd, lo se co ond to '.! ::{ nrc---!h_at , vte_!hewof e r ents st tali t '1^roetuate the Dtactice of emD no Dersons on l tilv- waoe/adhoc / casua I for lono Deriods and the1 oeriodicallv reoula rize themon the oround that thev Iy ve served for o n a e b tht con stituti. nal or statutorv Dro vtstons relatins to re a'uitment and ADD intment The e effect of the direc t on is that ail LE who have worked for mote t'han t ( n rs as on 200 of n ma I ) without the ctio ofa nteri, er c t or tribunal, in vacant DOsts, Dosse ino the requrst OL lific,ation, are enti led to considered for reou rizatiot , fhe fact that the emolover has not un rtaken sucl e ercise of reouIariz ation within six mon ths of ttI decision in Uma devi or that such rci ew,as ndc I taken onl Y JI' reoard to a limited few. will not ctt ;en es uch emD lovees. 'he ricih ttobe nside fot_'eoularization i as a one-tim e mea ure.

¶143

These appeals have been pending for more han four years after the decision in tJmadevi. The Appellant ( aita panchayat,

¶144

¶145

SN,J \vp_28281 2022

¶146

Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in lJmadevi or th e reafte r.

¶147

The Division Bench of the High Couft has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with Iaw. 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 daity wage/casual/ad -hoc employees serving the Zita panchayai and if so whether such employees (inctuding the respondents) fulfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of umadevi. If they fulfitt them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 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 fulfilt the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶148

L4, IN the iudoment of the Aoex Cour in Nihal Sinqh and others v. St te of Puni ab reDorted 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 paad by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary

¶149

¶150

SN,J wp 28281 2022

¶151

control vested with the State. It held that thr: c:reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrri is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Stat :, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but clclse to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It alsl _ refused to acceot the defence that there were no sanl lioned posts and so th re was iustification for the Sta ie to utilise serv ces of la roe n umher of rteo nle liket h e a llants for decades. It held that "sanctioned posts do tot fall from heaven" and that the State has to creatg _them bv a con scious ch oice on the ,basis of me ration,r assessment of need Referrino to Umadevi it held that t! e apoellants befo re them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their initial ADDOi ntment was not an'irreqular' Dpoantnl :nt as it had been made in accordance with the statutc! !/__pfsegduC prescribed under the Police Act. 1861, arl I the State cannot be heard to sav that thev are not r: rtitled to be absor the services of h te 1^permanent basis as, accordinq to it, their appointmentri were ourelv tem Dor rv and not a ainst anv san tioned E lsts^created

¶152

¶153

SN,J \1p 28281-2022

¶154

bvthe State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cann ot become a licence for exploitation b h nd its instru m enta lities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oub!ic sector Banks can continue such a practice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

¶155

The iudqment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2015 SCC Online SC L797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in^particular

¶156

paras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶157

(7) We find it difficult to acceot the reasoninq adopted bv the Hiqh Court. The riqht of the appellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No.272 dated 22.4.1994. The aDpellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶158

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 Coutt in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh A Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480.

SN,J \yp 28281-2022

In Am arkant Rai v State of Bihar reoo: ed (2015 )8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that ''l'.re objective behind the exception carved out in this case v,as to permat regularization of such appointment, which rre irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmen^g r, whi6h are irregular but not illegal, and to ensurg_ secu ritv of emolovment of those Dersons who had ser',r the State Governme t and their instrumen alities for rr ore than ten ears". I t case em orkin 'or 29 vears. This decision aDDroves earli r vrew e: :pressed in M.L.Kesari extracted a bove.

¶164

L7. In State of Jarkha nd v Kamal PrasarI reoorted in (20L4) 7 SCC 223. simi lar view was t I {en bv the Suoreme Court and it was held as follows :

¶165

,,47.... In view of the cateoorical findino ! I fact on the relevant contentious issue that the tesp,onatl nt emolovees have continued in their service for more I han 7O vears continuouslv therefo ', the leoal orinciple laid down bv is Cou madevi ca Sta fKa kavU adevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2006 S,CC (L&SI 731 at pala 53 sauarelv aDolies to the oresent cases, The Divisiot1 Bench of the hc, as a resDondent emolovees are entitled for the relief, the s e?,e^cannotbe ,n tertered with bv th,s Court."

S.J lvp 28281.-2022

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.LZ.2O2Z passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2O23 dated 1O.10.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶170

The iudoment ot theA Dex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State ot Ma harashtra and Others reoorted in AIR 2O2O SuDreme Court 3969 and in articular oara Nos.lOO and 1Ot held as followsl

¶171

"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-boun to exercise such ower wh h V ti uthori has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferr eduoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv declston of the Government or has exercised uch di retion mal fide rontr V n consideration,

¶172

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 upon the Government or a public authority. "

¶173

¶174

SN,J \yp 28281 2022

¶175

The Division Bench of this Court in i:s Judqment dated 1O.O 6.2013 Dassed in W.A.Nos.782 of I01O and 854 ot 2OL2 while uoholdinq the Judqment dat<:, I 08.O9.2010 Dassed in W.P.No.2 4377 of 2007 and C.C.ttl r.48 of 2008 observed as under:-

¶176

"Further, it is manifest from the material on ecord that the services of the similarly placed persons who ap; oached the law Courts urere regularized. The appellant-Corpor: i,rn also issued various office orders/circuiars dated 20.12.19t 9, 11..09.7992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for^- gularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen l- at Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice L 7^{any employer} or workman. As can be seen from the factua scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for s rch a long and continuous period of tlme on casual basis is n I hing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Sett on 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relyinq r rr the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responclr nts are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugne<1 orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects )l' the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our :onsidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.'

¶177

2L. The Division Bench of this Court in iEs Judqment dated L9.O9.2OL7 Dassed in W.P.No.27l1 .7 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD Daqe 282 at oara 1, 3 and para 18 obseryed as under:-

¶178

"16. It is trite that the law declared by the S,r preme Court is binding throughout the country under Arti,: : 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that ) , the time the

¶179

judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), war; rendered. the

¶180

provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. l'1o.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Suprenr Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f

¶181

¶182

SN,J wp_2a2\l 2422

¶183

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. [t 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.L994, while giving directions in Para N0.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regu la rization/a bsorptro n exrst. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated ))- 4 I^qqa dn nnt r,vhitf la dovvn tha r ri.lth an.l tha ud m nt in Man la Bashi, i's r n ln trr I hc traie.torv of thc dirertions issrred hw the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's case^(suora). It is, therefore-not oernnissible for the resoondents to take shelter u Lder Aet 2 of 1994 and G.O, Ms. No,212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reqularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down ln Para N .53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case^(supra ).

¶184

For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ Detition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider reqularisation of the services of the Detitioners aoatnst the existinq vacancies of Work InsDectors and aDDoint the subiect to their satisfvinq the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the^judqment in Uma Devi's case^(supra). This orocess must be comDleted within two months from the date of receiDt of a coov of this order. "

¶185

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 21.O4.2o20passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W-P.No.23O57 of 2019 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD^paqe

¶186

379 at oaras 45, 48 andtrara 50 observed as under:-

¶187

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of

¶188

¶189

SN,J !! P-282tt I 2022

¶190

service by now. They have been given minimun 1 rne-scale from the year 2000. They have been contlnuously ,r:rking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till det:

¶191

It is not know whv the lst resoon lent has not followed the decisi on in Uma Devi's cas! _^(supra),as exola ined in M.L. Kesari's case (su ra) anc undertaken a one-tim e exercise of oreDarino the list da ilv waqe emDlov ees who had orked for more than t ln (1O) vears without the intervent ion of th e Courts and^'1 ibu na Isason 10.4 -2 o6 and suhiectt hem t(ranr cess vet IteaLion as to wheth r thev are workino aoain t vace l t posts and oossess reouisite oualifications for the oo ts. a nd if so, reqularize their services. 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowe<l; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st resp: rCent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of s€ -rices on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary ,) rrJ viel61;ys .6 Articles 74, 76 and 21 of the Constitutior c,f India; thg resDon dents are directed to reoula rtze on r 1e-time basis Detitioners' services from the date each of t re Detitioners complete 10 vears of service on dailv w I tes from the in itial ates of their a oDointment. ut, th(i _ shall not be entitled to anv mone arv relief. The said ex( rcise shall be done within two (2) weeks from he datr 1of receiot of coov of t e order."

¶192

This Cou opines that in the preser t case, the resoond ents failed to discharoe the r dutv ir examin rnq the reouest of the Deti tioner for requl rrization of petitioner' who is workinq as full t me sweeper and f rther to co nsider his req uest to reat tl e tem ora rv servt e of the oetitione r in the last orade oo 5 i of full time sweeD r as requ lar one for all ouro ses bv _ rrantino last orade Dav with Derio ical increm ent revised 'rom timeto

¶193

¶194

SN.J rvp 28281_2022

¶195

time from the date of aoooin tment of the oetitioner, in accordance to !aw.

¶196

This Court ooines that oetitione r! s entitled for nsideration of eti f c for rant of the reli t Draved for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in vario us iudqments (referred to a nd extracted above) and t e view of the Division Benc of this Court in the Judome nts referred to and extracted above.

¶197

Takino int con sideration : -

¶198

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

¶199

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

¶200

i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Pase 396 (iii) 2025 rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9

SN,J rvp_28281.2022

(v) (2017) l Scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247_ (vii) (2O13) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2O1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶205

d) The Division Bench order of this lourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 201,1 and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment datec 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.[[ r,,48 of 2008 (referred to and extracted above),

¶206

e) The Division Bench order of this lourt dated L9.O9.2017 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above),

¶207

f) The Division Bench order of this :ourt dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O20 in :L of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 (referred to and extrar ted above).

¶208

g) In the light of discussion and conclusion rs arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the presenl order.

i ! I I

)

SN,J \tp 28281 2422

The rit Petition is allowed. the Detitioner rs di rected to DUt-forth the claim of the oetitio er for req u la rization of Detitioner's services, and also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temoorarv services of the netition at n the last^L r^{rrf a n} ost of Sw er ,1G renular ft ne for all urooses bv o rantino last orade oav with oe riodical lncremen s revised from time to time from t e date of aooointm ent of the Detitioner and all co nseo uentia I benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in

¶214

su DDo rt of oetitioner's case as out-forth in t e Dresent writ Detition, within a oerio of one^(O1) wee from the tof he order an s on n shall exa ine and consid er the same in accordance to w tn or it wl r les of na r stice b nrnwid tn tt an flnn(irtr r nltv of f!a rcnn:l hearrn a tn lha Detitioner in terms of orders Dassed bv the Suoreme Co r rr.t rrI ,.lt l Devi' c r r+ed in 2OO6⁽ 4 lca .D a e1 the iudo ent Dassed in W .P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated o8-o9- O1O reoorted in 2011 (1) ALD. Paoe 234 and as confi r ed in W.A.No. 782 ot zOLo dated 1O.O6 .2013, and so as ts! nB ch Ju of thi

SN,J !,p 28281 2022

19.09.2 O17 oassed tn W.P.No.2 72l 7 ot 2OO reoorted in 20L8(2 )ALD Daqe 2a2 and also the Dir ision Bench .Iu do ment of this Court dated 2 L.O4.202 -! r_ Dassed in I.A.Nos.1 ofzOzOin1of 2O19 in W .P.No.2 I alZ_el 2_Or9 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe 379 which rad attained finaliW, within a period of four (04) weeks_f m e date ofr iot of coDv of th is order dult, aki nto consideration the observations and the law_ aid down bv the Ao x Court in the various i udo ments ( r(: erred to and extra cted above). and in oa rticu la r- Dara 5 f the iudqm t of the Aoex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v Uma Devi and d ul comr runicate the d ecisio to the oetitaon er. However thert: shall be no order as to costs.

¶220

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin! in ihis Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶221

¶222

To,

¶223

.C. SULEKHA I TANT R EGI //TRUE COPYII ${I CTION OFFICER \ One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble MRS JUSTICE SUT EhALLI NANOA (For Her Ladyshi ps Kind Perusa I .J 1 I?3"';[i:i,."€"JiPd {:ffi na vath raj Depa rtme r r rera n ga na secreta ria t,

¶224

-c''*f^-r/

¶225

R5*rGrtr

¶226

Finance and^{Planning Department'Telangana}

¶227

2 The PrinciPal^SecretarY-, Secretariat.^HYderabad,S tate of Telangana. The District^{Collectorand Chairmanof Selection Committee and Minimum} Wa'g"t Co;mittee,^{Rajanna Siricilla Distrrct}

¶228