D. Ganganna and 21 others Vs The State of Telangana and 10 others

'1 . D. Ganganna, S/o: Sayanna, Aged about 53 years, Working in the temporary post of contingent Sweeper on full time in ZPSS, Chitiyal, Nirmal fillandal and District, TS.

¶10

B- Hanumaiah, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 60 years, Working in temporary post of sweeper on full time At PS Utoor, Nlanakandur Mandal, Karimnalar District, TS,

¶11

J. Lachaiah, S/o Veeraiah, aged about 49 years, Working rn temporary post of sweeper on full time in PS Korrampally, Kanagal lr,4andal. Nalgonda District, TS,

¶12

R. Savithramma, Wo Balamallu, aged about 6'1 years, Working in temporary post of sweeper on full time at PS Passarpally, Ja.yir:eddygudem, Suryapet District, TS.

¶13

Md. Sarvar, S/o Raj Mohammed, aged about 57 years, Working in temporary post of sweeper on full time, At PS Pachanoor, I,4anakandur Manda[, Karimnagar District, TS.

¶14

Jahangir, S/o tt/ahabub Sab, aged about 67 years, Working rn temporary post of sweepe-r on full time At PS Thoompally, Atmakur tr/an<jat, lVlahabubhagar District, TS.

¶15

M. Chandraiah, S/o N. Padmanna, aged about 63 years, Working in temporary- post of sweeper on full time At ZPPGHS, Atmakur, Mahabubnagar Diskict, TS.

¶16

E. Balaraju, S/o Rajaiah, ag ed about 58 years, Working in temporary post of sweeper on full time At HS Manakandur, I,4anakandur Mandal, Karimnagar District, TS.

¶17

A. Lachaiah, S/o Pochaiah, aged about 45 years, Working in temporary post of sweeper on full time At HS Vardhi, Manakandur Mandal, Karrmnagar Diskict, TS.

¶18

N. Bikshamaiah, S/o Narsimnha, aged about 61 years, Working in temporary post of sweeper on full time At PS Koshagudem, Jajireddygudem Mandai, Suryapet Diskict, TS.

¶19

'l 1 . J. Veeraswamy, S/o late Veera Mallaiah, Aged about 62 years, working in lemporary^{post of sweeperon full time in PS Ramchandrapuram,Mulugu} Mandal and District, TS.

¶20

Mohd. Yousuf, S/o Mohd Kasim, Aged 57 years, Occ Full time contingent sweeper on full time, Central Primary school, Atmakur, Wanaparthi District

¶21

r

¶22

13.Jakki Yadaiah, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 57 years,^'Vorking in temporasry post of sweeper on full time At PS Gollapally, Devaru 5 pula l,4andal. Jangaon District, TS.

¶23

'14. V. Laxmamma, W/o Narsimha, aged about 61 years, Working in temporary post of sweeper on full time ln TMPPS Ankushapr', Ghatkesar Mandai. lvledchal IMalkajgiri District, TS.

¶24

P. [/lunyala, V//o P. Manga Reddy, aged about r 2 years, Working in temporary post of sweeper on full time ln PS AnojigLr, a, Ghatkesar Mandal, l,4edchal l,4alkajgiri District.

¶25

16.1t4. Balamma, W/o late Bikshapathi, aged 55 years, Wr) krng in temporary post of sweeper on full time ln UPS Kachavani Singarzrr r. Ghatkesar li,4andal, [,4edchal lValkajgiri District, TS.

¶26

G. Balamani, W/o Balaraju, aged 54 years, Workinl in temporary post of sweeper on full time ln PS Parvathpuram, Ghatke ;ar l,4andal, t\4edchal lvlalkajgiri District, TS.

¶27

1B.li/. Pentamma, D/oAtV/o Pentaiah, aged 58 years, Wcr ling in temporary post of sweeper on full time ln MPPS Ghatkesar, ManC: Ghatkesar, [.4edchal lr/alkalgiri Drstrict, TS.

¶28

G Amrutha. Wio Narsimha , aged 47 years, Workin I rn temporary post of sweeper on full time ln PS Chengicherla, Ghatk: ;ar !\4anda1. Ir4edchal Malkajgiri District, TS.

¶29

B. Saramma, W/o Sailu, aged 60 years, Working n temporary post of sweeper on full time ln PS Edulabad Harijanwac i . Ghatkesar Mandal. lr4edchal IValkajgiri District, TS.

¶30

N. Chukamma. W/o late Babaiah, aged about €, years, PS l,4PUPS Kondapur, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal t,4alkajgiri Distri :t, TS.

¶31

22 A. Balamani, W/o Gandaiah, aged about 54 years, Wor <ing in temporary post of sweeper on full time, ln Primary School, Harijanw: r a, Ghatkesar lv4Andal. Ir./edchal - It/alkajgiri District, TS,

¶32

...PETITIONERS

¶33

AND

¶34

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretanr Panchayat Ral Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶35

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretan, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶36

3 The Zilla Praja Parishad, Rep. by its Chief Executive Cf cer, Suryapet District, Suryapet Town.

¶37

4 I|e filtq^{Prala Parishad,Rep. by its ChiefExecutive Of cer, Natgonda} District, Nalgonda Town.

¶38

5 The ZiJla Praja Parishad, Rep. by its Chief Executive Of cer, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar Town.

¶39

6 ]fe fitla^{Praja Parishad,Rep by its ChiefExecutive O1f :er, Ir,4ahabubnagar} District, Mahabubnagar Town.

¶40

7 . fhe Zilla Praja Parishad, Rep. by its Chief Executive Oi cer, Nirmal District, Nirmal Town.

¶41

The Zilla Praja Parishad, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Ir,4ulugu District, Mulugu Town.

¶42

The Zilla Praja Parishad, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Wanaparthy District, Wanaparty Town.

¶43

10.The Zilla Praja Parishad, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Jangaon District, Jangaon Town.

¶44

1 1 . The Zilla Praja Parishad, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, ltiledchal tValkaigiri District.

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of^{Writ of} l,4andamus to declare the inactlon of the^{respondents jn not treating the petitioners} as regular one in the last^{grade post} from^{their date of appointmentto till date for} not implementing GO I\4s. No.¹ 93 dated^{'1 4-03-1 990 in its true spirit to regularize} their services in the Iast^{grade posts} by^{respondentsto deprive the petitionersto} secure legitimate living wages on^par with^{their regularly engaged persons in last} grade posts as unjust and unfair, illegal and violative of^{Article 14' 16' 21, 39 (d)'} 43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of lndia and^{Govt. Orders in subjecting the} petitioners to continuous exploitative enslavement during their life time^{or till their} death without any service^progress by taking advantage^{of their helplessnesswith} poverty, poor social, economical political background in depriving their^legitimate wages decades together and^prays to direct the^{respondents herein to treat the} services of the petitioners as regular one^{in the last grade posts for all purposes} from the date of their initial appointment to till^{date along with periodical} increments revised from time to time by applying the^{principleIaid by the full bench} of this Honble Court in WA No. 1222 of 1999 and^{Batch dated16-10-2000} followed by the principle laid by the Honble Apex Court^{in the caseof Prem Singh} Vs State of UP in CAS No. 6798 of 20'19 and^{BatchCasesdated 02-09-2019} (2019 (10) SCC 516) and in CA No.^'1254 of 2018 to reckon contingent^{services of} petitioners for computation of their qualifying service to^{grant pension,gratuity and} other retirement benefits with all Consequential^{monetasry benefitson par with} regularly engaged last^grade employees along^{with periodical incrementsrevised} from time to time with 100 % compensation on^{arrears of pay as per principlelaid} by the Honble Apex Court in^the case^{of Union of lndiaVs Avtar Chand in CA No.}

¶47

3416 - 3445 of 2010 Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALt 3 of 2019 SC 32)^by applying the aforesaid^judgments by this Honble Cor-rrl in sirnilar cases of petitioners as per Article 141 of our Constitution.

¶48

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶49

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir tumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High:Court ma^y be^pleased to direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioners in service, ly^paying on^par with regularly engaged last grade employees along with^pet i^rdical increments^as revised from time to time as^per the orders^granted in l.A. N:¹ of 2018ⁱⁿ WP^No. 38763 of 2018 dated 30-10-2018 in srmilarly situated cases.

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH. GANESH

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR SERVIO:S-l

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 11: SRI PRADEEP Fll .DDY KATTA, SC FOR TG ZILLI PARISHAD

¶53

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶54

2

¶55

SN, J \p 28-127 2022

¶56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶57

WRIT PETITION No.28427 0F 2022

¶58

o/o L8.O7.2025

¶59

Between:

¶60

D. Ganganna & 21 others

¶61

Petitioners

¶62

And

¶63

$^{The State ofTelangana& 10 Others}

¶64

Respondents

¶65

< Gist:

¶66

Head Note:

¶67

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Ch.Ganesh

¶68

^Counsel^{for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Services-I}

¶69

^Counsel^{for Respondent Nos.3 to 11: Sri PradeepReddy Katta,} lea rned standing cou nsel

¶70

? Cases Referred:

¶71

(i) (2020) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit (SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) 1 SCC 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (201s) 8 Scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶72

SN, ] \vp 28427 2022

¶73

)

¶74

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI I\ ANDA

¶75

WRIT PETITION No.28427 OF zOt^t-2

¶76

ORDER

¶77

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistarrl Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Developm,e nt/ appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and lea^- red Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Plann i rg, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, Sri prtdeep Reddy Katta. learned Standing Counsel for TG iZ lla Parishad, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to l1

¶78

2. The oetitioners aooroach ed the Court :I :ekinq orayer as under:

¶79

"...to issue an order or direction more partic r larly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus to declare :he inaction of the respondents in not treating the p::itioners as regular one ln the last grade post from t I eir date of appointment to till date for not implement ng GO Ms. No. 193 dated 14-03-1990 in its true spirit t > regularize their services in the last grade posts by re:; rondents to deprive the petitioners to secure legitimate lving wages on^par with their regularly engaged persons ir last grade posts as unjust and unfair, illegal and violati^,e of Article

)

4

SN..I \rp 28117 2012

14, 16,21,39^{(d),43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of} india and Govt. Orders in^{subjectingthe petitioners to} continuous exploitative^{enslavement during their life} time or till their death^{without any service progress by} taking advantage of their^{helplessnesswithpoverty,} poor social, economical^political background^{in depriving} their legitimate^{wages decades togetherand prays to} direct the respondents^{herein to treat the servicesof the} petitioners as regular one in the last^{grade posts for all} purposes from the date of their initial appointment^{to till} date along with^{periodicalincrements revised from time} to time by applying the^{principlelaid by the full bench of} this Honble Court in^{WA No. 7222 of 1999 and Batch} dated 16-10-2000^{followed by the principle.laid by the} Honble Apex Court in^{the caseof Prem SinghVs State of} UP in CAS No. 6798 of^{2019 and Batch Casesdated 02-} 09-2019^{(2019(10) SCC} 516)^{and in CA No. 1254 of} 2018 to reckon contingent^{services of petitioners for} computation of their^{qualifyingservice to grant pension,} gratuity and other retirement benefits^{with all} Consequential monetary^{benefitson par with regularly} engaged last^{grade employees along with periodical} increments revised from time^{to timewith} 100(PERCNET) compensation on^{arrears of pay as per} principle laid by the Honble Apex Court^{in the case of} Union of India Vs Avtar^{Chandin CA No. 3416 - 3445 of} 2010 Batch Cases dated t9-02-2019^{(ALD 3 of 2019 SC} 32) by applying the aForesaid^{judgments by this Honble}

¶84

S. J \p_2{t.lll 2012

¶85

Court in similar cases of petitioners as per ,l-ticle 141 of our Constitution and pass... ".

¶86

Learned counsel ADD annq on t,r:half of the petition ers p lacinq reliance on the avermen t; made in the affidavit filed rn su port of the oresent writ D etitio n perta rnq rn pa rti cu la r, to the servtces _^rendered by petiti with the respon dents herein fOr more than a decade contends that the oetitioners a re e 1 title for th relief a s Drave d for in the ores nt writ Detiti() r.

¶87

ERUS DTHER CORD DIscussro NANDC ONCLUS ION:-

¶88

Lear d counsel a oDea rr nqon b e half of the petitioners su bmits that the subiect issue ir the oresent case is souarelv cove redbvth e order of thi:i Court, dated oa.09.2010 Da ssedinW .P.No.2 4377 of 200 reDorted in 2011 (1) ALD Paqe 234 as c nfirmed in Vr/ A.N 82 of 2010 dated 1o.o6.20 3anda lso order. date ( 19.09 .2017 DassedinW .P.No.2 72t7 ot 2OL7 reoorl din : o18 (2) ALp Paoe 282 and also the order. ated 21. 4.2(I !o assed in w.P. N o.23O57 of 20 19 reDorted in 2O2O( 4)A L D Pao e 379.

(

6

SN, ] wp 28127. 2022

Learn ed standin^q counsel^{aDDeaflnqon behalf of the} resDo ndent No.4 submits that the rievance of the Detitio ner as^{put-forth in thepresentWrit Petition ha} not been addre ssed to the^{resDodents hereinasondae and} therefore, the^{petitio n ercannotcomplain inaction on the} pa rt of resoon dents her tn tn con iderino t^e orlevanc^eof the^p etitioner and^{hence, the relief as praved for b} the etitio rinth resen wit etiti n n not ra nte and n o Manda mus^{canbe issued aoainst te resoondents} hereun der as souoht for^{and theDeitionersmvbe} direct ed to out^{-forth theoetition ers'orievbnce asDut-} forth in the oresent Writ^Ptitionbv avofade tailed uDon re Dre entation to the^{resDondents hereinand} recet Dt of the said reDrese ntati on the^{resDondents woul d} consider the same in accordance to law, within^a reasonable oe riod. 6. Learned coun el aopea^{rinq on behalf of the oetitioners} does not disDute the^sai submission made^bv the^lerned sta ndinq counsel a poearinq^{on behalfof the resoonde nt} Nos.3 to 11.

I

d

l

SN. J \p 28421 :022

The Apex Court in the iudqment reported in (2020) 1 SCC^(L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Utta T Pradesh and others, at^para 36 held as under:

¶98

"36. There are some of the employees who h,r e not been regularized in spite of having rendered the ser\ ces for 3040 or more years whereas they have been sugr )rannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged e!t rblishment, not against any particular project, their servil :s ought to have been regularized under the GoveTnmeni nstru ctio n s and even as per the decisron of this Court n State ot Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the sa id decision has laid down that in case service:; have been rendered for more than ten years without the⁽ over of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the : ervices be regularized of such employees. In the facts c i the case, those employees who have worked for ten ye:i rs or more should have been regularized. It would not l) r proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizatis 1 as others have been regularized, we direct that their ;erv ices be treated as a regular one. However, it is maclr clea r that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues < f difference in wages had they been continued in serv < : reg u la rly before attaining the age of superannuation. ii ey sha ll be entitled to receive the pension as iF they ha ve retired from the reoular establishment and tt t1 : ServiCeS rendered bv the m rioht from the dav th!^{y entered} the work-charoed establishment shall be J^ounted as qualifvino service for DurDose of oension.''

¶99

The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwarl District PWD Literate Da ilv ^,a oe EmDlovees Associatiorl Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 39,5 laid principle th at the State shoul not keeD a Derson ir temDo rarY or

t'

8

SN, J \p 18127_2022

adhoc service for lonq^period and^have to t^{reat such} r o ns as reqular one.

¶104

9, Para No.53 of the of the iudqment^{of theADex Court} in the tate of Ka rnataka and others^{Vs. Umadevi, dated} 10.o4.20O6 reoorted in^{(2OO5)4SCC 1 isextracted} hereu nd er: -

¶105

"53. One asoect needs to^{be cla rified, Theremavbe} cases where irreq ular aoooint^{ments (not illeoal} ADDO intments) as exolained^{inS.V. Naravnaooa} 1 1 scR 2 R.N. Nan a 1 1 qcc4 no 1r ndB^N N.1.r.a r at an r L97o( 4l cccs^n7'l and referred toⁱⁿ ara 15 above. of dulv oualified fl erso n G in dul s^en* ned vaca f 6r'rcts mi tt t h^v been ade and the emolovees^{have continued to} work for ten ea rso r more b^ut wtt hout the interv ntion of ord rs of the^{courts or of trib u na ls.} The oues tion of requ larization of the^{services ofsuch} emplo ees mav have to be^{considered on mrits in} ti ht of flnct b th int ses a v ferred n int la ht of men . In that cont h Union f ndia t te vernment n hei r r ment should take steDs to reoularize^asaone-time measure. the servic es of such^{irreoularlv aooointed,} who have worked for ten^{vearsormoreIn dulv} a nctio osts nder c rofo f h courts or of tribuna^{s and shouldfurther ensure that} ul rre men und n to fill vaca nt sanctioned oosts that^req uire^{to be filled uo,} wh re te rar ord wa e re bein now e d. mus set i motion within six mo ths fr^o m this ate.

a

9

S,.I \rp 28417 20ll

The iudqment of the Apex eolrt date( 2o.L2.2O24, re orted in 2024 Law L2 n l ro Anita and qthels v. union of India and others, anc the relevant paraqraph Nos.12, 13, 24. 26, 27 and 28 rre extracted hereunder:

¶110

"12. Despite being labelled as "pa r :-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and contiruous basis over extensive periods, ranginr; from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or tem I orary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, r: 3ular, and akin to the responsibilities ty'1 rically associated with sanctioned posts. Mor', )over, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks durin 3 the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶111

Th e claim bv the resoondenl:! that these were not re ular oosts lacks mri 'it, as the nature of the work oerformed ll / the aooellants was Derennial and fundamer tal to the functioninq of the offic€s. The rel urnng nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective, ,f how their initia I engagements were labelled. It s a lso noteworthy that subsequent outsourclng cf th ese ' the same tasks to private agencies aftrl appellants' termination demonstrates the ir lerent need for these services. This act of outs(), rrcing, which effectively replaced one set oF work(l s with another further underscores that the vi rrk in question was neither temporary nor occasior al.

¶112

l0

¶113

SN, J tvp 11112? 2022

¶114

The landmark^judgment oF the United State in the case of Vizcaino v I\4icrosoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a^pertinent example from the^private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the^Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were.ⁱⁿ fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding^payment of employee benefits,^thereby increasing their^profits. This^judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the^work performed, rather than the Iabel assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and beneFits. It hiohliqhts the iud icaarv's role in rectifvinq such m isclassifications and ensurino that workers receive fair treatm e nt.

¶115

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 Iong serving employees.^This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and " irregu la r" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that em^lovees ln irreoular aDDointments who were enoaoed in dulv sanctioned Dosts and had served continuouslv for more than ten vears should be con sidered for re U atlzat ona s ao netime measure. However, the laudable intent of the^judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their

S. J .',r 1s127 2021

7-

ll

lack appointments are not illegal, but mere 1 adherence to^procedural formalities. Gove^- rment departments often cite the^judgment in Un., De,ri (supra) tc argue that no vested ri!l lt to regularization exists for temporary emplr ryeeS, overlooking the judgment's e x^p licit acknowledgment of cases where reQularizzrr ion is appropriate. This selective application d il ;torts the iudqment's spirit and^puroose, ejfe, :ivelv weaponizinq it aqainst emplovees wh.rr have over rendered indispensable services d eca d es.

¶120

In light of these considerations, I OUr rment opinion, it is imperative for gove^- departments to lead by example in provid r g fair and stable employment. Engaging worker; on a temporary basis for extended periods, eslr rcia ly inrhen their roles are integral to the organi: i tio n s functioning, not only contravenes interrr tional labour standards but also exposes the orgar i .a tio n to legal challenges and undermines emlr oyee ment morale. By ensuring fair employ practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigt, rtio n / the promote job security, and upholcl principles of justice and fairness tha: they are meant to embody, This approach i ligns with international standards and s( tsa positive precedent for the private sect )r to follow, thereby contributing to the o rerall betterment of Iabour practices in the cor ntry.

¶121

2fJ. In view of the above discussio r and findings, the appeals are allowed. The imlt rgned orders^passed by the High Court and the Tr bunal are set aside and the original application is zr owed to the following extent:

¶122

i. The termination orders C ated 27.t0.2018 are quashed;

¶123

sN..t \ P ts [7 ]otl

¶124

)

¶125

ii. The a ooella nts sh al! be taken back on du forthwith and their se rvt ces r qularised forth However, the aooella nts shall not be e ntitledto anv Decunrarv ben efits/back wa es for the pe riod thev ave not worked for but would beentitled to continuitv of se rv r ces e said od and e sam would be counted for their oosttiral benefi

¶126

The J udoment of t e ADex Court dated 31.o1.2025 I e Dorted in 20 25 rNSC 144 i ..SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", iN O rticular. the releva nt Dara N s.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶127

"15. It is manifest that the Aooellant Workmen con ti nuouslv rendered their servrces over everal vea rs, sometimes soannin q more than a d eca de, Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the Emolover's failure to furnish such reco rdsdes D ite directions to do so-allows an adverse inferen ce under well-establashed la bou r i u risorudence. Indian lab ur law stronolv d isfavors er etu -w e ractual n ment clrcum stances where the wor rs Derman ent in natu re. Morallv and leqallv, workers wh fulfil onqornq municioal requrremen ts vear after vear ot be di e mmari! s dis ensa oa rticu la rly in the absence of a qenuine contractor

¶128

ll

¶129

.a

¶130

'. I r!t 23J 2; l1)l l

¶131

aoreement. At this juncture, it would D: appropriate to recall^r:he broader critique of indefin tl "temporary" employmilnt practices as done by a rece' . judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following pa rag ra pirs:

¶132

'22. The pervasive misuse of tempor; ry employment contracts, as exemplified in this : rse, reFlects a Droader systemic issue that ac^{</sup> ersely afFects r,vorkers' rights and job security. n the private secl or, the rise of the gig econom'/ has led to an ncrease in precanous employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of beneft;, job securiiy, and fair treatment. Such practi(:( s have been criticrzed for exploiting workers a r I undermining labour standards. Government institur ions, entrusted rvitl-r upholding the principles of fairr r ss and justice, i)ea r an even greater responsibilit\ to avoid such (lxp oitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse oF temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the det imental trends obsr:rved in the gig economy bU also sets a con(rerning precedent that can erode 6 ublic trust in qov.,'rn mental operations.}

¶133

It is a disconcerting reality t rat temporary cmployees, particularly in governm:1t institutions, often face multifaceted forms of ex r oitation. While the foundational purpose of temporar) contracts may havr: been to address short-term or s:asonal needs, they have increasingly become a mer:l anism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-t€ rm obligations owed to employees. These practict s manifest in several ways:

¶134

o Misuse of "TemDora rv" Labelr i: Emplovees enoao ed for work that is essenl:i al, recurrinq, and tnteoral to the functioninq ol rn institution are often Iabelled as "ten rporarv" or "co ntractual," even when their roles mi r

f

14

SN. J lfp 18127 2022

those of reqular emolovees. Such misclassification deDrives workers of the diqnitv, securitv, and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to. desDite oerforminq identical tas s

¶139

. 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 contrlbutions being equally sig n if ica nt.

¶140

. 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.

¶141

. 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."

¶142

The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some

l5

SN. ] \p 28r27. 2022

7^

measure oF parity in minimum pay. Regrelt rbly, this only perpetuat€rd precariousness: the Appellant^\y'orkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still u'l rertain status. While the High Court recognized the imprr tance of their r'vork and hinted at eventual regularizati) r, it Failed to alford thern continuity of service or meanrnil ul back wages commensLrrate r.;ith the degree of stal.r tory violation evident on record.

¶147

In light of these consideratlons,^r I e Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Worknr:n standsⁱⁿ vioiation of the most basic labour law princil les. Once it is established that their services were ternr rated without adherinE io Sections 6E and 6N of the ,,P. Industrial Disputes Acl, 1947, and that thev wer 3 enq aqed in essential,^p erennial duties, these work ( rs cannot be releqated to perDetual uncertaintv. Wlile concerns of municipal budqet and comrr iance with recruitment rules merit consideration r; rch concerns do not absolve the Emplover of statutol^y oblioations ol neqate equitable entitlemenl s. Indeed t re leoitimate bureaucratic limitations cannot trump riqhts of workmen who have served c<1 rtinuously in de facto reoular roles for an extended p1 riod,

¶148

The impuqned order of the Hiqh^(:ourt, to the extent thev confine the Apoellant Workr ren to future dailv-waqe enqaqement without <t,ntinuitv or

¶149

16

¶150

SN, J !p t3127 2022

¶151

meaninqful back wa qes is hereb v set side with the followino directio ns:

¶152

L The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 7941 , is declared illegal. AII orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶153

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 entireperiod of absence (from the date of termination u ntil actual reinstate ment) shall be counted for contin u ity of service and all co nseq u entia I benefits, such as senioritv and elioibilitv for o romotions, if a nv.

¶154

ll

¶155

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% 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.

¶156

IV. The Resoo ndent Emolover is directed to rnttiate a fair and transDarent Droce ss for reo ularizinq the ADDellant Workmen within six mon ths from the date of reinstatemen dulv consa erino the f ct that thev have oerformed De ren nial munici al duties akin to oer anent oosts In assessino re u la rization. the Emo ver shall not i m Dose educati onal or Drocedural cnt ria retroactivelv if such reour rements were never aoolied t the ellan Wor men to sim rl situa

r

1l

SN. J ,t 28127 2022

recrula r emDlovees in the Dast.^'l'( the extent that sanctioned vacanc ies for sucl 1 duties exist or are reouired, the Respondent^E I lo er shal expedite all necessary administrat i^{,e orocesses} to ensure these lon otime emolo v 3es are not indefin itelv retained on d a lv waoe^; contrarv to statutorv and e o u ita ble norms.

¶161

In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(: ) filed by the Nagar N igam Ghaziabad are dismissed.^"

¶162

L7 1 t2. The Apex Cou rt in a iudoment reoorterl i Supreme Court Cases 148 in State of Pu nIe lr and others vs Jaoiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and j:s sub-oaras

¶163

(1)(2)(3), of the said iud o ment observed as rr rder:

¶164

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, vr^t'. le adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, hat temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum af t te regular payscale, merely for the reason, that the activitic: carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary emp tyees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held enti t )d to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular 'mployees.^The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the Hi, h Court in the impugned^judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶165

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contrer ,.ual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, tf tppointed a fter undergoing a selection process based upt n fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligi tle candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regul.t pay scale from the date of engagement.

¶166

I (21 But if dailv waqers, ad hoc a' contractua orn not a aL tinst reoular sanctioned^posts and their service: are a va iled

¶167

l8

¶168

SN. J wp 28121 2022

¶169

continuo uslv with notional breaks, bv the Sfate Government or its instrumentali ties for a sufficient lono oeriod i.e, for 7 O vears. such dailv waoe ad hoc or contractual aDporn tees shall be entitled to mtnimum of the reoular oa v scale without anv allowances on the assumDtion that work of Derennial nature ,s available and havin q worke for such Ionq oeriod of time, an eouitable riqht is crea ted in such cateoorv of oersons. Their clai, for reo ularization. if an mav have to be cons red se ratelv in terms of ledallv Dermts le sch me,

¶170

(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 daity wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,,

¶171

The iudq ment of the Aoex Court reDo rted in 2010f 9) scC 247 between : State of Kar nata ka and others v M.L.Kesari a nd others, rn Darticular, aras 4 o9rea sas

¶172

u nd er:

¶173

The decision in State of Karna ka v. Uma devi was rendered on 10.4.2006 ( reoorted in 2006⁽⁴⁾ SCC 1).In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re_ engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the coutls must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instru mentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facititate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held . that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a tegal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in

19

SN,.I \p 28127 2022

{,

adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti',1lron. Thts Court however made one exception to the above a)sition and the same is extracted below :

¶178

"53. One asp ect needs to be clarifiect. There ma vbe cases where irreqular aDDointmenl;^(not illeqal Na rava na DDa appointments) as explained in S.V t1967 SCC 4O9l⁽⁷⁾ and SCR B.N. 7281, Nasaraian R.N. Naniundt[192l)u tpa 17972 (4) SCC sOTl(7) and referred to in Dara 75 above, oi dulv aualified Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant D(! 'ts mioht have een made and h e s e continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts ! r of tribunals. The^question of reqularization of i:l e services of such emolo vees mav have to be ''onsidered on er in the li ht of the ncl, ettled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to a1d in the liqht trf thi< i t ttln ntan t. fn th al anrlloYf the Union of f ndia - the Sfate Governme^nt, ; a nd their instru mentalities should take steps t reqularize as a one-time measure, the services of ; tch irreqularlv aDDointed, who have worked for ter.^y'ears or more in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not 't tder cover of orders of the courts or of tribunit s and should further ensure that reqular re^(t ritments are undertaken to fill those vacant sd! ctioned^posts that leqrrire to be filled up, in cases where temoorarv emolo es or dailv wat I trs are beinq now emDloved. The Drocess must b,= set in motion within six months from this date. ....

¶179

"5. It is evident from the above that theit is an exception to the general principles agatnst^{'regularizatto,} ' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled .

¶180

(i) The employee concerned should have workec for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benef t or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In (ther words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶181

(ii) The appointment of such employee shou,( not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments .r: not made or

¶182

20

¶183

SN. .I \tp_2E42i 2022

¶184

continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be j egal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed quatiftcations and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competttive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

¶185

(iii) umadevi casts a dutv uDon the co cerned Government or instrumentalitv. to take steDs to reqular the services of those irreoularlv a DDointed emolo s who had served for more than te vears without the benefit or Drotection of anv interim o ers of courts or tribunals, as a one-tim e measure. u adevi, directed that such one-time m easure must be set in hin month the da ts I I ( rendered o 70.4.2006).

¶186

The term^'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decisron rn 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 who ha've been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

¶187

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several da ily-wage/ad -hoc/casua I employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instru men ta lities did not commence the onetime regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instru mentalities 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 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lLmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider a daitywage/adhoc/ those employees who had put in 10 years of

7

l1

S, J \rp 23.12r 2022

continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withc'' ava iling the protection of any tnterim orders of courts or i ibu nals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise tn tet') s ol' para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of som,' =mployees^who were entitled to the benefit of^para 53 of Umat1,' i, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as : continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise^t li be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled^I be considered in terms of Para 53 cf Umadevt, are so considet '

¶192

The obiect behind the said direction^, t^para 53 of limadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure tl at tho'se whe have Dut in more than ten vears of cont t luous servrce without the Drotection of anv interim ordet s o't cputts^pt tribunals, before the date of ecision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularizat.( n view of their lonq service. Second ,s to en:t re tho!^jhe deoartments / instrumentalities do not f't rPetuate the practice of emolovino Dersons on _,1^{tilv-waae /ad-} hoc/casual for lond Detiods and the t pertad ledlly reqularize them on t e around that thev lt, ve served for more than ten vears, therebv d featino the constitutional or statutorv orovisions relatina to re 'uitment and apoointment. The tr e effect of the direct on is that all Dersons who have worked for more than lc n vears as on 70.4.2006^(the date of decision in Umadet ) without the protectioa of anv interim order f anv cour t or tribunal, in vacant Dosts, Dossessina the reouisite oL '; lification, are entitled to be considered for reoularizatiotr, The fact that the emplover has not undertaken suct exercise of reqularization within six months of tl t decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was unde't taken onlv in reqard to a limited few. will not ctt;entitle such emDlovees, the risht to be considered fot .equ la rization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

¶193

These appeals have been pending for more han four^years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (^7-ila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of espondents of regularization within six months of the decisio, in Umadevi or thereafter.

¶194

The Division Bench of the High Court has t rected that the cases of respondents should be considered in , ccordance with

a

22

SNJ !p 28417 t022

law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gaiag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a geieral one_ time regularization exercise, to find out whether tiere are any daity wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zita panchayat and if so whether such employees (inctuding the respondents) fulfitt the requirements mentioned in para 5J of umadevi. If they fulfi them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercqe 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 o)f the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to s-ay that if the respondents do not fulfi the requirements of Para 5j of Umadevi, their services need not be reqularised. If the employees who have compteted ten years seivice 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 according ly.

¶199

L4. In the iudom ent of he Aoex Court in Niha I Sinqh and others v. State of Punia b reoorted in ( 2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposat their services were made avaitable. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciptinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter

23

S, J rp 28127 1022

;il

exclusively within the authority of the Stat^t , but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but clt rse to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship. its action is arbitrary. It als.l refused to acceDt the defence that there were no sanr: ioned^posts and so there was iustification for the St;r'e to utilise services of larqe num erot oeoole like the rpellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned Dosts do r ot fall from heaven" and that the State has to creat(l them bV a conscious choice on the basis of some rationarl assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi, it held that tr1 3 aDDellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their initial appointment was not an 'irreqular' aDDointrr { nt as it had been made in accord a nce wit h the statuto r /^procedure prescribed under the Police Act. 1861. arr, I the State cannot be heard to sav that thev are not er titled to be absorbed into the services of the State or^permanent basis as, accordinq to it, their aooointments were^purelv temoorarv and not aqainst anv sanctioned rl )sts created by the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exDloitation bv i:l re State and

I

24

s. J \p 28427 2022

its instru mentali ies and neither th Gove rnmen of P n abn rth e ubli ect r Bank can tin u cha Dractice inconsistent with their oblioat ion to functionrn accord an ce with the Con stitution.

¶208

The iudqment of the Apex Cou rt reoorted in 2015 scc Online c L797 betwee n B.Srin iva su lu and others v Nellore Mun icioal C rDoration Reo. bv its Commiss i o ner, Nellore Distri ct, Andhra Pradesh and others. inp a rticu Ia r Dara 7a nd 8 reads as u nder:

¶209

(7) We find it difficult to acceDt he reasonino adoDted bv the Hiqh Coutt. The rio htofthea ppellants to seek reqularization flow from the G.O. No.212 dated 22 4.1994. The aoo ellant have been in service of,the first resDon dent not onlv orior to the ISSUA nce of the said G.O. but even subs equent 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 appeltants and continued to extract work from the appe ants.

¶210

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 altowed modifying the order under app.eal by directing that the appeltants, serviies be regularised with effect from the date of their compteting their iive yea, continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District lollgctgr/Chairperson^{& others vs. M.L. Singh &} ors.^{2009 (B)} SCC 4BO,

¶211

16, In Amarkant Rai v State of Bih ar reoo rted (201 s)8 scc 255, the Supreme Cou rt held that 'The objective

¶212

25

¶213

S, J !rI llJ,1l -,- 2022

¶214

f

¶215

behind the exception carved out in this case ^/as to^permit regularization of such appointment, whicli are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmert s, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensur€ securitv of emplov ment of those^persons who had se:^r ed the State Government and their instrumentalities for r lore than ten vears", In that case, emplovee was workin I for 29 vears. This decision aDproves earlier view r xpressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.

¶216

t7, In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Pras;r, I reported in (2OL4) 7 SCC 223, similar view was t rken bv tlre Supreme Court and it was held as follows :

¶217

"47.... In view of the cateqorical findinc of fact on the sue th t the re 3^{ent emplovees} have continued in their service for more' than 70 vears continuouslv therefore, the leoal orinciptS laid down by this Court in Umadevi case^(State of Karnaiaka v Umadevi (2OO6) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at oi ra 53 squarely aoplies to the Dresent cases. Th e Divisi<t r Bench of the Hiqh Court has riqhtlv held that t L e respondent emplovees are entitled for the relief, the s tme cannot be interfered with bv this Court."

¶218

The Judgment of this Court datec 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2019 whic h pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Laksh ni Narasimha

t

rl

ZO

SN. J \p 28.127 2022

Swamy Temple, Yadadr Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No,937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶224

The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reoorted in AIR 2O20 Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticular oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶225

"100. The High Courts exercising their^jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, not'only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of h mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise suc ow h v rnment or a ublic authori has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred upo n it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant con sideration.

¶226

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."

¶227

The Division Bench of this Court in its Jud^o ment dated 1O.O5.2O13 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 20 1O and 854 of 2O12 while UD holdino the Jud o ment datedO 8.09.2010

-:;E:+:;..,:isffi*

27

SN, J ,Yp 28121 2012

(

Dassed in W.P.No.243 77 of 2OO7 and C.C.Nr,.4 8 of 2OO8

¶233

observed as under:-

¶234

"Further, it is manifest from the material on ecord that the services of the similarly placed persons who apl) oached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corpo rit ion a lso issu ed various office orders/circulars dated 20.12.19t l, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for { gularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen ' 1at Sectron 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair Iabour practice l r any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factua ;cenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for s rch a long and continuous^period of time on casual basis is nr) h ing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Se(t on 25-T of the ID Act- The learned Single Judge while relying c l the decisions of the Apex Court, rlghtly held that the responcr ats are e n titled to regularization as directed in the impugnec orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects t the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our onsidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals"'

¶235

The Division Bench of this Court in s Judqment dated L9.O9.2017^passed in^rN.P.No.272. 7 ot 2Ot7 reported in 2018(2)AtD paqe 282 at para 1ri and para 18

¶236

observed as underr-

¶237

*16. It is trite that the law declared by the Sr preme Court rs binding throughout the country under Arti(l r 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that l) the time the judgment )n Uma Devi's case (supra), wa:; rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of t994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.7994, were in existence. The Suprenrr Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and rbsorption of f persons/ who entered service through back dr> ,rs by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for a )pointments to publlc posts, consciously ordered : lr one-time a bsorptio n/ reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given a rection s in thrs regard to all the State Governments and also Jn ion of Ind ia.

¶238

T

¶239

28

¶240

s. i rrp 28rl2l llll l

¶241

The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, while giving directions rn Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regu a riza tion/a bso rption exist Therefore Act2ofl 4 1OO and c.O. Ms. No,212 dated 22.4.L994, do t whittle down the width and the u n Man u ash in i' se su doe n lower the traiectorv of the dire ions issued bv the Suoreme Court in Pa ra 53 of its iu q ment tn Um Devi's case ( uora) rti s- thereforenot D erm I ssi h Ie for th e resoonden ts to take shelter underAct2ofl 994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, to denv reqularization to the Detiti oners, who have, admittedlv, satisfi ed the criteria laid down in Para N o.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case^(su o ra ).

¶242

For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 21 .6.2011 , in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and^+h6 wrt^{f nafI} all ith^t h ction^{i.r f} h resDonden ts to consider reqularisat ion of the services of the oetitioners aoai st the existino vacancres of Work Inso ctors and a oDoint the subiect to the ir satisfvinq the cri ria laid dow in Para No.5 3 of the iudo ment in evi's a roc be com hin tw from ate f tofa this order."

¶243

The Division Bench of t is Court in its J udqment dated 2L.O4.202 O oassed in I .A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.2 3057 of 2019 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 at oaras 45- 4 and oara 5(} observed as u nder: -

¶244

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

¶245

It is not known whv the 1st resnondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devt 's case^(suora ). as

¶246

...*$g;;a ,I:nai-;1ffi!

¶247

29

¶248

S. J \p 23111 2022

¶249

explain ed in M.L. Kesari's^{case (suDra ! a n(l} ndertaken one-tim e exercrse of oreoarinq the^Iist a i dailv waoe emolovees who had worked for^{more than} :n^(1O vea rs without the inte rvention of the Courts^{and '} I^{ibunals as on} 10.4.20 06 and subiect themtoao^rocessv€ 1^{f icationas to} whethe r thev are workinq a arnst^vaez U t^{posts and} os r uisite ual ns for t and if so reoularize their services.

¶250

Accord ngly, the writ^petitlon is^allowed the impugn ed orders dated 20.8.2019^{passed by the 1st respc} rdent rejectin^g the cases of^petitioners for^{regularization} of^s€ -vices on onetime basis are declared as^{illegal, arbitrary3} rd vrolative of Articles 14. 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resDondents are directed to req ularize on o 1e-time basis DetitiOn ers' services^{fromthe date} ach of t re oetitioners comolete 1o vears of service n dailv w a res from the in iti ates of their aDoointment. But thti shall^{not be} entitled to anv monetarv relief^{.The said e>} 1^{rcise shallbe} done within two⁽²⁾ weeks f rom the datr f recei t coov of the order."

¶251

This ourt opines that in the Dreser t case, the I resp o n dents failed to discharqe their dutv 1 examininq the request of the oetationers for requlrrization of petitione r's services, who are workino s full time conti no e nt sweeoers and further to consider^{heir rouest} r at the tem rv of the e E^{rs an the last} orade Dost of full time sweeDers as reoul;t one^{for all} ou rDoses v orantinq last^qra e Dav wit't^periodical increment revised from ttme to time frorr the date of aDDointment of the oe troners n accordanct: to law.

J

30

SN. J lrp 28427 2022

This Court oDines that oetitioners are entitled for co nsi d e ration of oetitioners'ca se for qrant of the re lief as r edf tn h resen rit P ition i view of th observatio ns of the Apex Court in vaflou iudom ents referr to an xtra a and th view of th lvrst ench his !n Jud m nts ref rred to and extracted a b e.

¶256

25, Takinq into con sideration:a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos,3 to 11,

¶257

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

¶258

i) (2020) l SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) SCC page 396 (iii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2O24 Law Suit (SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l sCC 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s

¶259

I -.r:::.: . . :..,::'ii:i-liEiit-l

¶260

]I

¶261

SN. J !p 28,121 l0l2

¶262

(viii) 2O1s SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) I Scc 265 (x) (2OL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379

¶263

d) The Division Bench order of this lourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2O1ll and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment date,J 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.Nr .48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶264

e) The Division Bench order of this lou rt dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O1 z (referred to and extracted above),

¶265

f) The Division Bench order of this :ourt dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in LA.Nos.l of 2O2O in L of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extrac ted above).

¶266

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

¶267

I

¶268

32

¶269

SN. J "P^{28.r2 7 2022}

¶270

The Wri Peti n all WE th ition rs e d irected to put-for th the claim of the Detition e rs for re la ri tion of De ton rs s rces and also the claim fth eti roner o reat ete or s of he etiti ners in th las ra os of tin ent we er sre lar ef r ll r o sb ran I t r de with periodical increm ents r vtse rom tim o tim e from he te fa orn ent of he titi ers and all nse ntia I ben its ul nclo n h rel van documen ts rn SUDDO rt of petiti ners' case as DU t-fort tn th p resen t writ oetition, wit hin a D e riodofone( 01) week fromth date of receiotofc oDv of the o rder and the re^p ondents s hall exami ne and co sider the same rn ac cord a ncetol aw, rn conformt with orinci Dles f natural u ice b rov In o rtu of e al artn to th oetit I On ers tn t rms of ord rs Da sed bv the Suore me Court in Uma Devi's ca se reD orted in2oo6(4 ) scc Paqe t, th u men d w.P No. 4377 of OO7 da 8 o1 re n 1 A P e 4 as c rm nw N 7 of o da ed1 o6. 3 n also as oer D lslon Bench Jud qment of this Co rt da ted

¶271

'":...|Jl!:!?€#i

¶272

JJ

¶273

SN. J !.P 28'121 2022

¶274

t9.o9.20L7^p assed in W.P. No.272L7 of^2OO 1^{reported in} 2018(2)ALD Daqe 282 and also the^Da sto n Bench Judqment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O 20c ssedⁱ n^I.A. Nos.1 of 202O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.^No.23( 57 ol^2OL9 reoorted in 2O2O⁽⁴⁾ ALD oaoe 379 which tad attained finalitv, within a oeriod of four^(O4) weeks^1'r om the^date of receiDt of a coD of this order, dulv takin IN consideration the observations and the law laid dowlby the Apex Court in the various iudoments^(rel erred to^and extracted above), and i ND a rti cular. oara I o.53 of the iudqment of the ADex Court in the case of^Stateof Karnataka v. Uma Devi and dulv comt! unicate the decision to the^petita oner. However. there shal no order as to costs.

¶275

M iscella neous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ti ltSD/- r\ SRINIVASA REDDY ASS I TANT REGISTRAR

¶276

//TRUE COPY//

¶277

SECTION OFFICER

¶278

One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SURI:^{)ALLI NANDA} (For Her Lordship's Kind Perusal)

¶279

To, 1 The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana,^{Panr;l ayatRaj Department'} Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶280

2 The Piincipal Secretary, The State of Telangana,^{Fina r ;e and Planning} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶281

J The Chief Executive Officer, The Zllla Pr$a Parishad.^{I ;uryapet District,} Suryapet Town.

¶282

4- The Chief Executive Officer, The Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda Town.

¶283

The Chief Executive Officer, The Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar Town.

¶284

The Chief Executive Offlcer, The Zllla Praja Parishad, fi/ahabubnagar District, [/lahabubnagar Town.

¶285

The Chief Executive Officer, The Zllla Pnja Parishad, Nirmal District, Nirmal Town.

¶286

The Chief Executive Officer, The Zllla Praja Parishad, t/ulugu District, Mulugu Town.

¶287

The Chief Executive Officer, The Zrlla Praja Parishad, Wanaparthy District, Wanaparty Town.

¶288

10.The Chief Executive Officer, The Zilla Prla Parishad, Jangaon District, Jangaon Town.

¶289

1 1 . The Chief Executive Officer, The Zilla Praja Parishad, Medchal tt/alkajgiri District.

¶290

12.11 L.R. Copies.

¶291

The Under Secretary. Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and^Company Affairs, New Delhi-

¶292

14.The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶293

'15. One CC to Sri CH. Ganesh, Advocate [OPUC]

¶294

1 6. Two CC to The GP for Services-I, High Court for the State of Telangana,^at Hyderabad[OUT]

¶295

'l 7. One CC to Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, SC for TG Zilla Parishad[OPUC]

¶296

1 B. Two CD Copies

TJ GJP

q

\ t

HIGH COURT

CC TODAY

DATED:1810712025

ORDER

WP.No.28427 of 2022

(,o
* a_

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶307

<2,'lL
5,lt
k
tr',6

D. Ganganna and 21 others v. The State of Telangana and 10 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Ganganna and 21 others v. The State of Telangana and 10 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukkiri Rajanna Vs The State of Telangana

E. Samuel John Vs The State of Telangana

A. Prabhavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Peer Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Yadlapati Venkateswara Rao Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Habeebunissa Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others