Allowed

Amireddy Adndamma v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC5 Aug 2025WP/28406/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition challenging denial of regularization and last-grade pay after 36 years of service as a daily wager. The Division Bench allowed the petition, directing respondents to regularize the petitioner against existing vacancies and pay last-grade benefits with periodical increments.

What did the court decide?

Regularization of petitioner's services against existing vacancies of Work Inspectors; treatment of services as regular from date of appointment; payment of last-grade pay with periodical increments.

Amireddy Adndamma Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

a32521

¶2

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

¶3

.TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶4

TWO THOI'SAND AND^{TWENW FIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS^{JUSTICESUREPALLTNANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO:2&O6OF 2021}

¶8

Betn een:

¶9

Amireddv Andamma. D/o. Late Linga^{Reddy,Aged about 54 years, Working} ;;'cdiiid;"i Swtiepei in^{ZPHS, Doralallv Village, Kanagal Mandal,} Nalgonda District, TS.

¶10

..PETlTIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary,.PanchayathRaj and} Rural Employment DepartnGnt,^{Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶13

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Financeand} Planning Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶14

The District collector^{(Panchayat) and chairman, of MinimumwagesAct and} District Selection Comhittee,^{Nallonda District, Nalgonda.}

¶15

The zilla Praja Parishad,^{Rep. by its chief Executiveofficer, Nalgonda} District, Nalgonda.

¶16

5.TheMandalParishadDevelopmentfficer,KanagalMandal,Nalgonda District' TS'

¶17

...RESP.NDENT'

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the afFrdavit^{filed therewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue an order or direction more^{particularlyone 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, even after exhaust of life} energies and^youth in 36^{years long service,as unjust,unfair, arbitrary and} violation of Article 14, 16,21,^{39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our constitutionin} denyinglegitimatelivingwagesoflastgradepayandpraystodirectthelSt Respondents herein to treat^{the servicesof the petitioner as regularone from the} date of initial appointment^{i.e. lrom 241o7t1985by applying the decisionand}

¶19

principle laid by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court reported in 2O2O (41 ALD 379 -S (DB) and by applying the decision and principle laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in para 36 and 37 in the Judgement in C.A. No. 679812019 rrnd Batch Cases dated O2lOgt2O19 (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C.A. No. 1254 ot 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner fcir computation of qualifying sr:rvice to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with all consequr:ntial monetary benefits including seniority with arrears of pay in last grade post along with periodical increments, as nevised from the date of appointmenl of the petitioner with 100 % compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A. No. 3416 - 3445 of 2O1O and Batch Cases daGd 19l02l20tg (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court under Article 141 c,f our Constitution.

¶20

lA NO: I OF 2021

¶21

Petitic,n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ciroumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the r€,spondents herein to release last grade pay benefits, treating the petitioner as regular one from the date of appointment i.e. from 2410711985 tor rendering long service of 36 years as contingent employee along with periodical increments from time to time, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GH.GANESH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 3: AGP FOR SERVICESJ

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FORGRAII PANCHAYAT

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

SN,J w_2E4{6_202t

¶28

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.284O6 OF 2021

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

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

¶32

2 The oetitioner aooroached the Court seekino oraver

¶33

as under:

¶34

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the aition of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade [ost, even after ex'haust of life ene-rgies and youth in 36 years long service, as unjust, unfair, glbitgv and violation of erttcle i4, L6, it, ze'G) 43 and 30O (A) of our Constitution in denying leiitimate living wages of la.st.grade pa.y and prays to^'airict ite 1$ Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one lr_oT lhe.gate.^{of. initial appotntrnenti.e. from24-O7-L}BS by} applying the decision and princlple laid by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported i'n 2O2O 14y nLo 379 TS (DB) and by applying the decision and princip-le'laid by the Hon,ble lrp.-"I9.99y! i.t^{para36 and"37in the Judgemenrin C.A.} No. 6798/2019 & Batch Cases dated O2_og_ZdLg (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C.A. No. 1254 ot 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitio ner for computation of qualifuing service to gr€nt of pension, gratuity and other retirement b6nefits with all consequential monetary^-ben-efits including seniority with

¶35

¶36

SN,J w_28405_2021

¶37

arrears of pay in last grade post along with periodical increments as revised from the date of appointment of the petitioner with 100o/o compensation as per princlple lald by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No.3416-3445 of 2010 & Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass..... "

¶38

I a^r.lnaA anrrraaal :rrt6a-ts a rtat atlt hahrlf af iha oetitioner olacino reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed in suooort of the oresent writ oetition pertainino in oarticular, to the services rendered bv oetitioner with the resDond nts hercin for more than a decade contends that the oetitaoner is entithd for the relief as oraved for in the oresent writ oetition.

¶39

PERIISED T E RECORD:-

¶40

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

¶41

Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the petitioner submits that the sgbiect issue in the present case is souarelv covered bv the order of this Coult, dated Oa.Og.2O1O Dassed an w.P.N0.24377 ol 2OO7 reDorted in 2011(1) ALD. Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.ilo.782 of 2O1O, dated 1O.O6.2O13 and also order, dated 19.O9.2017 oassed in W.P.No.2721-7 ol 2Oa7 reoorted in 2O18⁽²⁾ ALO

SN,J w_zt1/J6_2O2t

Paqe 282 and also the otder. dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ot9 reported ln 2O2Oi4) ALD paoe 379.

¶46

Learned standino counsel aooearinq on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the oetitioner as out-forth in the oresent Writ petition had not been addressed to the resoondenis herein as on date and therefore. the oetitioner cannot complain inaction on. the oart of resoondents herein in considerinq the orievance of the oetitioner and hence. the retief as praved for bv the petitioner in tfre o and no Mandamus can be issued aqalnst the respondents here nder as souoht for and the neti oner mavbe di toD -forth e Detiti ner's ori ance as Dutforth in the oresent Wrat petition bv wav of a detaaled reoresentation to the rcsoondents herein and uoon receiot of the said reoresentation. ihe resoondents woutd consider the same in accordance to law within a reasonable oeriod.

¶47

Learned counset ap

¶48

does not disoute the said submission made bv the tearned

¶49

¶50

SNJ w_z8//J6_2t21

¶51

standino counsel aooearinq on behalf of the resoondent

¶52

No.4

¶53

fhe Aoex Court in the^judoment reoorted in^(2O2O) 1 SCC^(L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as under:

¶54

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30.10 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. l\s they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructlons and even as per the decision of this Court in State of l(arnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more s:hould have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others lrave been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly b,efore attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired fiom^the reoular establishment and the^setyices rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the^{work-charoed es} oualifirino service for ouroose of oension."

¶55

A. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwa District PWD

¶56

Llterate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid orincipte

(

SN,J wP_28406_2021

that the State should not keeo a oenson in temoorary or adhoc service for lonq oeriod and have to treat such oersons as reqular one.

¶61

Para No.53 of the of the iudoment of the Aoex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevl, dated 1O.O4.2O06 reoorted in^(20O6) 4 SCC 1 ls extracted

¶62

hereunder:-

¶63

"53. One asDect needs to lre clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular aooointments^(not illeoal apoointments) as explained in S.V. Naravanapoa 11967⁽¹⁾ SCR 128L R.N. Naniundaooa 11972⁽¹⁾ SCC 4O9I and B.N. Naoaraian 11979⁽⁴⁾ SCC 5O7l and referred to in oara 15 above, of dulv oualified oersons in dulv sanctioned vacant oosts mloht have been made and the emoloyees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reoularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the laoht of this iudoment. In that conterG. the Union of India, the State Governments and thear instrumentalaties should take steos to reoularize as a one-time measure. the services of such irreoularlv aooointed. who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover of otders of the courts or of tribunals and should-further ensure that raerrrhr raarr .ilr?r-hlG rrndar.*rlzaa la till *haaa vacant sanctioned posts that reouire:to be filled uo, in cases where temoorarv emolovees or daily waoers are beino now emoloved. The orocess must.be set in motion within six months from this date. ....

SNJ , p_28M_2V21

The ludoment of the Aoex Court dated 2O.12.2O24, SfuCs v. Union of hdia an oaraqraoh Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted Ecrec{E lsi

¶68

"12. Despite being labelted as '.part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regutar, and akin to the responsibilities typicafly associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the lndispensabte nature of their work.

¶69

Tfte claim bv the resoondents that these were not reoutar oosts tacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aooellants was oerennia! and fundamentat to the^functionino of the The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their dassification as regular posts, irrespective of how thelr 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 rreed for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

( I

SN,J w_2t/iJ6_202t

The landmark judgment of the Unlted 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, illustriting the consequences of misclassirying employees to circumv-ent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Afpeals 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 contractoL 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 employmeni status and the- __corresponding rights and benefits. Il i workers receive fair treatment.

¶74

. . While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)-entrtes sought to curtail the practice of backdoor and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misa pplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. Thls judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregu lar', nts.

¶75

,l time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutiofls rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where thelr

(^.

SNJ !vp_28406_202 I

appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularizatlon exlsts for temporary employees, ovedooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoolication distorts the iudoment's soirit and ouroose, effqctivelv .weaoonizino it aoainst emolovees who^have .rendered lndisoensable services over dccadcs.

¶80

In llght of these considerations, in our ,f,pinion, lt ls imperative for government ,lepartments to lead by example in providing fair and stable ernployment. Engaging workers on a t:emporary basls for extended periods, especially ,ivhen their roles are integral to the organization's lunctioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization lo legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote Job securaty, 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 hbour practices an the country.

¶81

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 aslde and the original application is allowed to the following extent:

¶82

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

¶83

¶84

SN,J w_zwJnzt

¶85

ii. The aooellantsshallbetaken backondutvforthwith andtheir
selwicesreqularisedforthwith.
However,theapoellantsshallnotbe
entitled to any pecuniary
benefits/back waqesfortheoeriod
thevhavenotworkedforbutwould
beentitledtocontinuitvofservices
forthesaidperiodandthesame
wouldbecountedfortheiroost-
retiralbenefits."

¶86

The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 31.O1.2O25 reported in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NfGAM, GHAZIABAD", in particular, the relevant oefa Ngs.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶87

"15. ft is rnanifest that the Aooellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over severAl vQars, sometimes soannins 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 stronqly disfavors} oeroetual dailv-wage or contractual engaqements in circumstances where the work is oermanent in nature. Mqrally and leqallv, workers who fulfil o4ooinq mu nicipat requirements vear after year

¶88

¶89

SNJ wp_2&106_2021

¶90

aoneement. At this Juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite^{..temporary,,} employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in laggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:

¶91

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rlghts and Job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterlzed by lack of benefits, job security, and fair tfeatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government i nstitutions, entrusted with npholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entitles engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed ln the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

¶92

It ls a dlsconcerting reality that temporary employees, partlcularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundatlonal purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2O24 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obtigations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

¶93

oMi of,^*Te Dorarv" bels: Em Dlovees enqaoed for wofk that is essentiat, recurrino, and inteoral to the functionino of an institutaon tTl

¶94

¶95

SNJ wp_28406_m2l

¶96

those of rcoular emolovees.^Such misclassification deorives workers of the diqnitn securihr, and benefits that reoular emolovees are entitled to, desoite oerformino identical tasks.

¶97

. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause^{or notice, as seen} in the^present case. This^{practice underminesthe} prlnclples of hatural 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 slgnificant.

¶98

o Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing^{roles performedby} temporary em^pfoyees, effectively^{replacingone sef'---'-} of exploited workers with another.^{This practicenot} only^perpetuates exploitation but^{also demonstrates} a dellberate effort to bypass the^{obligationto offer} regular employment.

¶99

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

¶100

The High Court did acknowledge^{the Employerb} inablllty to Jllgtify these abrupt terminations.^{Consequently,} it ordered re-engagement on daily^{wages with some}

¶101

¶102

SNJ wp_28406_2021

¶103

measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

¶104

U. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services wene terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enqaoed in essential, oerennial duties. these workers cannot be releoated to perpetual uncertaintv. Whate concerns of municipal budoet and complaance with recruitment rules merit consideration- such concerns do not absolve the Emplol.er of statutorv oblioataons bureaucratic limatatbns cannot trump the leoitamate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in

¶105

The im Duoned order of the ioh rt. to the extent thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to future I r

SN,J wp_28406_2021

meaninoful back waoes. is herebv set aside with^the followinq directions:

¶110

I. The dlscontinuation of the Appellant^Workmen's services, effected without compliance^{with Section 6E} and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial^DisputesAct, L947, is declared illegal. All orders^or communlcatlons terminating their^{services are} quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in^{servicefrom the} date of their termination, for all^{purposes, including} seniority and continulty in service.

¶111

II. The Respondent Employer shall^{reinstate the} Appellant Workmen 3n their^{respectiveposts (or} posts akln to the duties they previously^performed) within four weeks from the date of^{this judgment.} Their entire oeriod of absence^{(from the date of} termination until actua! reinstatement)^{shall be} cou 3 for oo tinuilrr of service a d all conseouential benefits. such^{as senaoraw and}

¶112

III. Consldering 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.

¶113

IV. The Resoondent Emolover^{is directedto} initi te a fairandt nsDaren oroce for reqularizano the Appellant Workmen^{within six} months from the date of reinstatement-^dulv 6niiderino the fact that thev^{have oerformed} 'l o i'l

SNr wp_284M_2021

In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are ailowed, whereas the appear(s) fired by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed."

¶118

gpg.*. C"rrt C"r"" t+g.

¶119

"s4 "The Fuil Bench of th9 H.igh court, whire adjudicating upon the above controversy had^-ancruded, tiri-iiii"iirv emptovees were not entitred to the mrnimui-or tn" ,.git;ip"i_ scale, merely for the reason, that the "ainii., arried on hv laitv-wasers^{a.nd resutaremptayees} w"riGiiiir. rni iitt"oin|j however, male two exceptions. remporary iiptoyees, who fert in either of the-t'wo exceptions, were nefi entittea to'*agii ;t the minimum of the pay-sat9 .drywn- Oy-,egiia, employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench'or ine High'colrc in thi impugned judgment are extracted hercundir:_

¶120

"(1) A dairy wager, ad hoe or contractuar appointee against the regurar sanctioned posts, ir appoinfJi ;il undergoing a serection process-basei upon' fairness aid equatity of .opp.ortunity to att other eligibte unaiui.r, shat be entiued to minimum of the regira, pry tiiiiT;;;

SN,J w_28/06_2021

ontinuouslv. with notional bteaks. by the^State Government or lE lnsf,jrumentalities for a^sufficient lono oerid I.e. for 7O vearc. such daily^{waoerc, ad} hoc or confracf,rtal apoolnfrles shzll be entltled^to minimum of frre ,qular^pay *ate without^anv allowanes on te asumpClon that work^of oetennial natute is available and havino^workedfor such lono oerlod of time, an eouitable^{right is} creafrld in such afuoorv of oercons.^{Their claim for} reaularizatlon. lf anv, mav have to be^considered seoaratelv in trrrms of leoally^{permissiblescheme.}

¶125

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum^{pay scale} after morc than thre yearc and two^{months of} @mptetion of 70^years of @ntinuous^{working, a daily} wager, ad hoc or.@ntndud employee shall^{be entitled to} arrea6 for a^perlod of threF-^years and^{two months."}

¶126

The iudoment of the APex Couft^{reoortedin 2O1O(91} SCC 247 between: State of Karn?taka^{and others v}

¶127

M.L.Kesari and otherc. in oailicular.^{oaras 4 to 9 reads as}

¶128

under:

¶129

The decision in State of Kamataka v. Umadevi^{was rendered} on 7O.4 .2006 keDo in 2OO6 4) 7). In that case. a constitution knch of this Cnurt held that^{appointmentsmade} without fottowing the due^pro@ss or the^{rulesrelatingto} appointment did not onfer any right on^{the appointeesand} courts @nnot dircct their absorption,^{regularization or re-} engagement nor make their seruie^{permanent, and the High} Coii in exercise of^juridiction under^{Article 226 of the} constitution should not ordinarily is*e directions^{for absorption,} regularization, or^permanent antinuane^{unlessthe recruitment} hid been done in a regular manner,^{interms ofthe} constitutionat scheme; and that the^{@ur,F..must be carefulin} ensuring that they do not tnterfere^{unduly with the economic} arrangCment of its affatrs by tlr- State or^{its instrumentalities,} nor lend themselves to b instruments to^{facilitatethe bypassing} of the constitutional and stafultory mandates.^{ThisCourtfurther} held that a temporary, @ntftctaal. casual^{or a daily-wage} employee does not have a legal right to^{be madepermanent} unless he had fruen appointd in terms of^{the relevant rules or in}

¶130

¶131

SN,J w_2t16_2O2t

¶132

adherence of Attictes 14 and 16 of the An*itution. This C.ourt same l2yevgr is extracted below ryade^{o.neexception} :^{to ti.} "ooii'-;;;;;;", and the

¶133

"5. It is evident ftom th9 above that there is an exception t: thl s9n?rat principtes against . r.gitiiiiiri-Jtrunciated in Umadevi, if the foilowing conditions aft fuffitted- : -'

¶134

(i) The employee concerned .should have wo*ed for lO yeal or more in duty sanctioned Dost without tt " ininl il'prctection of the interim order of anv court or tribunal, n oii{r words, the emptoyed the state emptoyee Government and or i;s continu.ed instrumentatity nim in'iiii "h;;i-;;;. iiiinarity ana continuously for more than ten yearc.

¶135

(ii) Ihe appointment of such employee should not be illegat, even if irregutar. Where the apioiitmeii-i-n"iot made or

SN,J wp_2t406_202 I

@ntinued against sandiotad^posts or wherc the Persons appointed do not @ssess the pre*rtbed minimum^{qualifi@tions,} the appointments wtlt be considercd to be lllqal.^{But where the} person employed possesd the qualifiations and was working against sanctlaned posts, but had been seleded without undergoing the prcess of open @mpetitive^selection, such appointments arc anstdered to be inegular.

¶140

6, The term^'one-time measute' has to be^{underctood in its} proper percpective. This would normally mean^{that after the} decision in lJmadevi, each depaftment or each should undertake a one-time exercise and^{preparea listof all} asual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have^{been working} for more than ten years without the lntevention^{of ourtsand} tribunats and subject tfiem to--a-"pto@s verifiation^{as to} whether they arc working against vaczrnt^{posts and possess the} requisite qualification for the posr. and if so, regularize^their sevices.

¶141

At the end of six months from the date^{of decision in} Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-ho4@sual^emPloYees were still pending before Coutb. several departments and instrumentalities did not commen@^{the one'} time regularization process, On the other hand,^some Government departments or undertook the one-time exercise excluding sevenl emPloYees^from consideration either on the^ground that their^{@ses were pending} in courts or due to sher ovetslght. In such^{circumstatrces, the} employees who were entitled to h onsdeted^{in termsof Para} 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose^{their right to be} considered for regularization, merely beause^{the one'time} exercise was completed without considering^{their cases, or} because the six rnonth^period mentioned in^{para 53 of Umadevi} has expired. The one'ttme exerct* should^{consider all daily-} wage/adhodthose employe* wlD had^put in^{70 years of}

¶142

¶143

SNJ w_2t4o5_2t2t

¶144

@ntinuous seruice as on [0.4,2006 without avaiting the ptote.dion .of any lnterim ordes of @uds or iriOinats. if a,iy employer had held the one-time exercise in termiif pa, SS 6f llmadevi, but did not ansider the can, oi iri iipioyees nno were entitled to the beneftt o.f para 53 of llmadevt, ihe employer onerned should consider their @ses also, as a ontinuattoi of the_ one-time exercise. The one time exeiise wiit b,e anctudd 91ly^when -a.!l^{the gmptoyees whoare entittedio ie considercd} in terms of^para 53 of Umadevi, are so consiiircd.-^-

¶145

9.-These appeats have been pelding for more than four yea$ ,zfter the decision in umadevi. The'Appetb;; (Zia eanchayat, Gadag) has not considered tne diei-oi'Uponaents of twularization within six months of the decisiion^-ii Umaaeq or t:hereafter.

¶146

-10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the <ases of respondents should be considered in aiioraane wttn

¶147

¶148

SN,J u/p_28406_2021

¶149

law. The only futther direction that needs be given, in view of lJmadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag shwld 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 seruing the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in^para 53 of Umadevi. If they^fulfill them, their seruices have to be rqularized. If such an^exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the^cases of respondents I to 3 because of the^pendency of the^cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in antinuation^of the said one time exercise within three months, It is^needlessto say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements^of Para 53 of umadevi, their ser:r:icrus need not be regularised,^If the employees who have completed ten^yearc sentice^{do not} possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the^post, at the time of their appointment, they may be^{consideredfor} regularization in suitable lower^posts. This appeal is diqosd^of accordingly.

¶150

t4.

¶151

65, the Supreme Court considered the case of^absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the^{State, whose} wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal^their services were made available. It held that the^{mere fact} that wages were^paid by the Bank did not^{render the} appetlants 'employees' of those Banks since^the appointment was rnade by the State and^disciplinary controt vested with the State. ft held that the^{creation of a} cadre or sanctioning of^posts f6-r a-Cadr-€-i5_-f--matter

¶152

¶153

SNJ w_28405_N2t

¶154

excluslvely within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appolntments of persons creatang contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also fefused to acceot the defence that there were no sanctioned oosts a4g!_ so there was iustification for the State to utilise gices of nroe numUer o decades. It held that^.'sanctioned oosts do not fall from reryen" ana tnat tne St conscious choice on the basis of some rationat assessment ot neea. neferrino to U

¶155

@intment was not an ' legE.-madejfl accordance with the statutorv orocedure

¶156

@ot^be heard to sav that Urbea lnto tt" se*i".

¶157

DadS as. accotdano to at, their apoointments wgre ourelv tglEporarv and not aoainst anv snctioned posts created Ey-U€-Statq It held that e iud^qment n Uma evi +Ory+,,.Oeco,rne^{a ticenceru}

SN,J wp_2E&6_?,/2l

Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can continue^{such a} oractice inconsistent with their oblioation^{to funetion in} accordance with the Constitution.

¶162

The iudoment of the Aoex Court^{reoofted ln 2O15} SCC Online SC 1797 between^{B.Sranivasuluand others v} Nellore Munacaoal Corooration ReD.bv. its^{Commissioner,} Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others,^{in oafticular} oaras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶163

(7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning^{adoDtedbv the} tn .O. bu c,O. till todav. The re'spodent Municipality^{belng a statutory} body is obliged by the G.O. 272(supra).^{Inspiteof the above} mentioned G.O. the respondents kept^quite for almost^{20 years} without regularising the seruice of the appellants^{and @ntlnued} to extract wo* from the appellants.

¶164

In the circumstances, refusing the^{benefit of the above} mentioned G.O. on the^ground that the^{appellants aprcached} the Tribunal belatedly, in our^{opinion, is not} Justifled.^{In the} circumstances, the appeal^is allowed^{modifying the order under} appea! by directing that the appellants'^{sen/i@s be tqularid} with effect from the date of their^{completingthelr five year} continuous seruice as was laid down^{by thls Court ln Distrid} Coltector/Chairperson & athers^{vs. M.L. Singh A Orc. 2@9 (8)} scc 480.

¶165

In Amarkant Rai v State of^{Bihar reoorted (2O151 8} SCC 265. the Supreme Court held that^{'The obiective}

r-i\

SN,J w_2W_2021

behind the exceptaon carved out in this ciase was to permat regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not ittegal, and to ensurie appointments, which are irregular but not illegat, and to ensure securitv of emElovment of those persons who had served the State Gg ygaIs". fn that case. emolovee was workino for 29 vearc.

¶170

¶171

Suoreme Court and it was held as follows :

¶172

Th€ Judgment of this Court dated c,6.:.2.2c/22 passed in W.p.No.27GO2 of 2Ot9 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha

f (

SNJ w_2,,406_?0zl

Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda^{District, which} had been upheld by the Division Bench of thls^Court ln W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.1O.2023^{and also} confirmed by the order of Apex Court^dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 0t 2024.

¶177

The iudor,nent of the Aoex Court^{in Hari Krishna} Mandii Trust V. State of Maharashtra and^{Othersrcoorted} in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Gourt 3969 and^{in oarticularoara} Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶178

"100. The High^{Courts exercisingtheir jurisdictionunder} Article 226 of the Constitution of^{India, not only have the} power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of

¶179

'-man<Iamus, but are duw-bound to exerCis€ sirCh oower, where the Government or a^{oublicauthoritn} has failed to exercise or has^{wronolv exercised} discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute-^{or a rule, or} a^policr, decision of the Government^{or has exercased} such discretion mala fade, or on^irrelevant consideration.

¶180

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

¶181

The Division Bench of this Court^{in its Judoment} dated 10.06.2013 oassed an W.A.Nos.782^{of 2O1Oand 854} of 2O1i while uoholdino the Judoment^{dated O8.O9.2O1O}

SN,J w_28446_2021

Bas

gbEerved as under:-

"Further, it ls manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly_placed person, *to ipp-u.hed the law coyrts wele regulari,id. ftre appeffanl_iorp-dration atso issued various office orders/ctrculars iit"a zo.iligeg, ri.o;g.igs1, O6.LO.2OOZ and tatest Ueing a.Z.-OOS--foi .egutarization of casuauco-ntract employees, Itr:s arso to be seen that section 25T of the ID Act prohtbits unfairlabou. p.".i[L Uv "nv ".prov"t. or workman. As can be seen from tnL iaauir icenirio 6r-[# cases on hand, engaging the respondents foi such a tong anJ continuous period of !!mi on casual basij iinothing Uut -unfair labour practice attracting the provisions'ir'l".tion 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Sing-le Jud'ge *nif" .ufying on the decisions of the Apex court, righti-y treu lhat ttr" i".'pon'aunts are entitred to regularizaflon as directed in the impuinea ora".s, as ihe le^a.T9d._s19te^{Judge conslde.uauir ir," i-rpEclor *re} maner in ueLarr, rn Ene prcper p-erspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant lnterference in it ese aipearl;

observed as under:-

]^{16, It is trlte that the law declared} by the Supreme Court is jlinaip throughout th_e .country unal.^-'aiicre 141 of the (:onstitution of India. It_. is noteworttry tnai- Oy the time the judgment in lJma .Mn!b_ ^?n tsup.bl, *". rendered, the F,rovisions of Act 2 of tg94 ,n-O^'C.d. ui. ruo.ZrZ, aut"O 2.2.4.L994, were an..existence. fn.- iupiel" Court, while denouncing. the practice of regutariziti;i;; absorption of f persons, who entered service [hrough back doors UV giving a go-bye to the due procedure p.u.iiOJ foi appointments to p.ublic posts, conscio-usly^' oraerea^- for one_time arrsorption/regurarization of those, wtro- were working for a period of not less tha.n 1_O years. Ii has given directions in this regard to all the State Ge-vernments "ni "tro Union of India.

f (

SNJ w9_?w_20l1

The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments srch as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O, Ms. No.212, datd 22.4.L994, while^giving directionsⁱⁿ 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 banriing regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 lOO tnd G.O. luls. No.212. dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the w:dth and the iudgment in ltiaaiula Easfiiai's case^(supral, does^not lower the traiectorw of the directions issued bv^the Supreme Couft in Para 53 of ats^judoment in Uma Devi's case^(suora). It is, thernefore. not oermissible for^the rcspondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and^G.o. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization^to the petltlonerc, who have. admiftedlv. satisfied^the criteria lald down in Para No.53 of the^iudoment in^Uma Denl's case^(iuora).

¶196

For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated^27.6.2OL7, in OA No.l442 of 20L4, on the file of the Tribunal^{is set aside} and respondents to consider reoularisation of the^services of the petitionerc against the existino vacancies of Work Inspectots and aopoint them subiect to thear satisftring the Giiteri ia lSial down in Para No.53 0f the iudomentⁱⁿ Uma DeviS case^(suora). This^process must be^completed wlthin turo months from the date of receiot of^{a coDY of} this order."

¶197

The Division Bench of this Court in its tudoment dated 21. -2O2O oassed inI^{A-Nos-1 o} t^2O2Oin I of 2O19 rnd llf D t?,tEZ ,rf ,a'll O aar.+all irr ?ll 2nta Al h rr.aa

¶198

?7O r+ hr;-c ,,C ta rnll rrrrr Efl .rlica zl ra rr n Aan

¶199

"45. There is no dispute that^{petitioners have been working on} daily wage since 1990 and have^put in almost^{(30) years of} service by now. They have been^given minimum time-scale^from the year 2fi)O. They have been continuously^{working without} any Court orders in their favour from^{1990till date.}

¶200

It Is dot known^rrhw the¹ recnondent ac n.lt followed the decision in Uma Devi's case^{(suora)- as}

¶201

¶202

SN,J w_2t1{6-2021

¶203

exolained in M.L. Kesari.s case (supral and undettaken a erurlovees who had worked for moE than ten716)IEE .tQ.+..2OOe, and subiect thlm to a pffi .whether they .are workino aoiinGt-vaEiE oosts and oossgss requiFite aualffications for the posts. and af so, reoularize their serwices.

¶204

Accordingly, the writ petjtion is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 p_assed by the 1st respondent relecting the cases of petitioners for regularizaflon of services on onetime basis are declared as ill-gal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the re$nendents are directed to reoularize on one-time basisoetitipnerc: Ferviccs from the dlieffi ggge.Jele tO yearc of serwice on daiiv waoej tronr tlre illtla-t dqtes of ttrelr aooolrtiffi entitled-tg_ anv monetarw .rclief. ThG siidGxErcise shalt be done Wishin Ewo {2} weeks from the date of receiot of coov of the order.,,

¶205

This Court opines that in the oresent case, the respSndents failed to disch

¶206

pClltloner's services, who aS. X!,orkino_as fufl time sweeper aUfu.tner to consiaer nl SWice of the^petatione

¶207

Der a reoul r one r al! u bvo ntino last relle oa" witn oerioaical I ttme- from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner, in accordatlgele_law.

SN,J w_2E105_2OZl

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

¶212

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

¶213

ix2o2o) l scc (ia) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2025 rNsc 144 (iv) 2O2a LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 1 (vi) 2o1o(9) SCc 247 (vii) (2o13) l4SCc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SCt797

(".

SN,J w_2t4M_2021

(ax) (2o1s) 8 SCc 265 (x) (2014) 7 scC 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2O24 (xii) R 2O2O Supteme Court 3959 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCrc 1 (xv) (xiv) 2O18(2)ALD2o11 (r) , Page234 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD pase 379

¶218

d) The Division iil8! rt 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7.gZ ol 2OtO and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 2010 passed in W.p.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶219

e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.p.No.272l7 ol 2Ot7 (referred to and .:xtracted above),

¶220

f) The Division Bench order of Hris Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in I of 2Ot9 and W.P.No.23OSt ot 20tg (referred to and e)Cracted above).

¶221

g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arraved at as atrove from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order.

t" (

sN'' wlu06_m2l

n a n n a

n a a 1 t) Il l a :l ! :l 3 :l I n a a