Allowed

Sri Ch. Babu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Aug 2025WP/29175/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two full-time contingent sweepers sought regularization in last grade posts with pensionary benefits after four decades of service. The court held the matter covered by binding precedents including Umadevi and directed respondents to examine their representation for regularization in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to submit detailed representation for regularization within one week; respondents to decide it per Umadevi para 53 and cited precedents within four weeks after personal hearing; no costs.

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

¶1

[^32s2 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLINANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29175 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Sri Ch. Babu, S/o Ch.Papaiah,^{aged about 58 years, Working as Full Time} Sweeper in temporary^{post, UPS. Khanapuram, Khammam(U)Mandal,} Khammam District, TS.

¶9

2 Sri Shaik Karim, S/o Saidulu,^{Aged about 58 years. Workingas full time} sweeper in temporary^{post, P.s.Polishettigudem, Khammam Rural Mandal,} Khammam District' TS

¶10

...pETrroNERS

¶11

ANO

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{rep. by its Principal Secretary'Panchayathrajand} Rural Employment Department,^{Telangana Secretariat,Hyderabad.} -.

¶13

The Statd of-Telangana,^{rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning} Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶14

a. tne Commissioner of^{Phnchayathraj and Rural Employment,Govt.of} Telangana, Himayathnagar,^Hyderabad

¶15

The D'istrict Colleltor^{(Panchayat), and Chairmanof lrlinimumWagesAct and} District Selection Committee,^{Khammam District' Khammam}

¶16

The Zilla Praja Parishad,^{rep. by its Chret ExecutiveOfficer, Khammam} District' Khammam

¶17

...RES'.NDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{lhe Constituttonof lnd ia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue an order or direction^{more particularlyone in the natureof writ} of Mandamus to declare the^{action of the Respondentsin not treatingthe} contingent services of^{petitioners as regular one in last grade post, even after} exhaust of life energies^{and youth in morethan f<,rurdecades of servicesof} petitioners to work in the same^{postwithout service progress by paying pittance} wage of Rs.4,000/- at^{present by sublecting the petitioners to exploitative} enslavement due to helplessness^{of poverty,poor, social backgroundas uniust,} unfair, arbitrary and violation^{of Article14, 16,21,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our} Constitution in denying legitimate^{living wages of last grade pay and prays to}

¶19

direct the l stRespondents herein to treat the services of the petitioners as regular one from the date of their initial appointment by applying principle laid by Full Bench in W.A.1222199 and Batch, dated.16.10.2000 and also as per reported case of Division Bench in 2O2O (4) ALD 379 TS (DB), also applying the principle laid by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in para 36 and 37 in the Judgement in C.A. No. 6798/2019 and Batch Cases dated 02-09-2019 (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C.A. No 1254 of 2018, in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC - 516) ti treat the petitioner as regular one to reckon contingent services of petitioners for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, graturty and other retirement tlenefits with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority with arrears of pay in last grade post along with periodical increments, as revised frorn time to time w.e,f., date of appointment of the petitioners with 100 percentaqr: compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in thc casc of Union of lncJra Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A. No.3416 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated^'1 9 02 2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying aforesaid princrptes taid down by tho Hon bleApex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution rn the case of the^pel rtioncr herein

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petrtrorr Lrnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavrt filcd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct tfrr: respondents herein to release last grade pay benefits, treating the petitronr:rs irs rcgular one from the date of their initial appointment for rendering more than four decades of long service as contingent employees along with periodical incrernents from time to time

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: AGP FOR SERVICES ll

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

SN,J \fp 29175 2022

¶28

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶29

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.29 175 0F} o22

¶30

ORDE R:

¶31

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned^{counselappearing on} behalf of the^{petitioners,learned Assistant Government} Pleader for Services-Il appearing^{onbehalf ofthe} respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri^{PradeepReddyKatta,} learned Standing Counset^{appearing on behalf of the} respondent No.5.

¶32

2 The oetitio ers aD roach the Cou rt seekin o^oraver

¶33

as u nder:

¶34

"...to issue an order or direction^{more particularlyone} in the nature of Writ of^{Mandamusto declare the actionof the} Respondents in not treating^{the contingent servicesof} petilioners as regular one in last^{gradepost, even after} exhaust of life energies^{and youth in morethan fourdecades} of services of^{petitioners to work in the same post without} service^progress by^{paying pittance wage of Rs'4,000/- at} present by subjecting the^{petitionerstoexploitative} enslavement due to^{helplessnessof poverty, poor'social} background as unjust,^{unfair,arbitrary and violation of Article} t4, i6, 2L,39 (di43 &^{3oo (A) of our constitutionin denvlng} legitimate living wages of^{last grade pay and praysto direct} th; 1't nespondents^{herein to treat the servicesof the} petitioners as regular one from^{the date of their initial} appointment by applying^{principlelaid by.FullBenchin W'A'} tzzzlgg & Bat;h a'atba^{ro.ro.z000and also as per reported} case of Division Bench in^{ZO2O (4) ALD 379 TS (DB), also} applying the^{principlelaid by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in} plia' :6 and 37 In the Judgement^{in c'A'No} '679812019^&'

¶35

¶36

SN.J \vp 29tb 2022

¶37

Batch Cases dated 02-09_2019 (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C.A. )J^ot1?54^{of 2018, in the case of prem} di.g'h V;^jtate or u.p. i^r!,]^s-(ll_:cc-s16)^{ti treat the petitioneia. i"!rr".} onu to r ecKon contrngent services of petitioners for coriputation of q-ualrfying servicF to grant of pension, glatJity''ano otne, retrrcment benefits with all conseq uentia l".on"iu.V benefits including seniority with arrears of piy in Lrl jiua'J port with - penodicat increments, as revised f;;; ;;" to "rongtime w.e.f., date of appointment of the petitioneri with 100o/o compensation as per principre raid by hpex court in the case of U,nion of tndia Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A. No.3416_3445 of 1919^{& Barchcases dared 1e_02_2olttA'io ';} o? zors sc 32) by applying aforesaid principles raio ofwn u-y ine non,ute Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution in the case of the petltroner herein and pass.....,,

¶38

3 e rn ou sel a tn b !f of the ti oners la !n rel an e t a r n a el the ffidavit file ln s rt f e r e w t eti on ertai nrn tn rti ula e e r d red eti ton r th r d er n r or th na d c de con en s a th o en tl th lief a ra ed or n e s t o

¶39

PER s D THE RE ORD

¶40

I c SION NDC N s N

¶41

4.L arned unsel a h e I toner su ml hat e n e re nt case ts ua relv coveredb the order of h is Court, dated 8.09. 20 o ss d i-^{r r-P-} o.24377 of 20o7 reDOr ted tn

¶42

¶43

SN,J wp.291'15 2022

¶44

20L (1) ALD Paoe 234 as conftrm tn w A.No .782^o t 2010. dated 1O.O6-2013^{and asoorderda} 19.09.2 oL7 o 18⁽²⁾ ALD Dassed in W. P.No.27^{17ot2L7reDortedln} Paqe 282 and also the rder. da 2L.O4.^o 20 Das di n W.P.No.2 3057 of 2019 oorted in 2fJ2(J(41^{ALD Paoe379.}

¶45

5 Learned standino counsel^aD rrno o behalf the r n e 4s ha v nc h oetitio ners as out-forth^{in the oresent Wr tPetitio} had not been addr^s sed tot he resDo de nts he ina s on dat^e and herefore, the oetition^{ers canotcomolain inactionon} he f res her tn n id th qfle vance of the Detataon ers^and hence, the relief as praved for v the titioner in the^{DresentWit oetitlon} nno ran n n nd s el e a n tth n e de so h for n th oeti roners av be irected to Dutrth the Detitioner s' v nce rth res Wr it w ofa detailed^reDresen tion to the resoondents^herein and u oon Dt of the sa d reore ntation. the resoondents would onsider the same rna cordance^to law, ithin a rea sonable oeriod.

¶46

¶47

SN,J wD 29t75 2022

¶48

6.L ar ed oun ela tn n alf th on o n di u th sa s on de th ear ed an tn co nsel a ear n alf th s nd t

¶49

No.4

¶50

The A ex ou ln e n r o di 2 o 1 c L s in Pr Sin hv ta of r ra h nd th s t ara 3 hel as d I

¶51

"36. There are some of the em ployees who have not been regularized in spite of havin g rendered the services for 3040 or more years whereas they have been superannuated As they have worked in the work-charged establishment not aga inst any particular project, their servi ces ought to have been reg ula rized und er the Government instructions and even as per the deci sion of this Court in State of Karnataka 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 Cou rt's order, as onetime measure, the services be regularrzed of such em ployees. In the facts of the case those employees who h ave worked for ten years or more a sh ou d have been reg ul rized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consid eration of regularization as others have been regul arized, we direct that their services be treated as a reg ular one. However. it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired fr m he e ar ta m t rendered bv them riqht from the dav thev ente d h ali tnkarrv efd r a osm il s

¶52

¶53

SN,J w_29t15²⁰²²

¶54

T e u ln f a d P Da Wa E t v o rna k re rte 19 P 3 la fl t s s n t or c rce r ve t t oersons s req ular o^ne.

¶55

9 Pa No. of o e e u he te Kar a Vs. ma vt te .04. 6 4 ccli e cte hereund I

¶56

"5 n ne c ifi re e s wher trr r m ts no iil tn nts s ra na a 67 1 s 1 R N u 72 1 79 4 c 7 c ndr f r o o ul u lifie o h v TN m a h ha nti d o k r o ith t e erv n to fo u or t u The esti of t so em ee ma ve e o m its n he ht h rtn ls u tn e s ab d ti t n I aa h me .In t s ver en r st m s td ke e to as ne- m ea re s ace s tr u rl n h v rk fo n rs r o tn s n o ro r r

¶57

¶58

SN,J \vD 29t75 2022

¶59

vac anla or s r nof tritoit edue s snde tno td truk enfi I ae ca es h te m lo or ail w e re el o o e s s tn o n ln st n h fr m hi d e 10. T e u m n of th A x a 2 1 2 2 o ed in o24 La s c 2 9 an t r v.U o o Indi d th rs a e el an a ra h o L2 1 4 6 n 2 r d

¶60

hereu n der:

¶61

"1-2., Deqpite being labelled as ,,part_time w-o_rkers," . the appeflants perior-IJ'ii"". essential tasks on a daily .na .or,tiirtr. basis over extensive periods, ..G"s"L"rn over a decade to nearly two'decaje"] ii ei. engagement was not sporadic o, tenrpoiary ln 1at1r_e,^{instead, it was recurrent,} regular, and akin to the responsibitities^-' rypilalty the associated respondents with sa did nctio not ned "ng.g. posts-.- "nV M"'.[oi..,-o-ti.. personnet for these task-s - ariirig --it. TJ:lil!...^{tenure,underscorinj-} irr. rnotspensable nature of their work. 13. Th lai re on e a

¶62

m f ol rnng nature oF these duties necessitates their clas sification as reg ular pos how their initial engagements noteworthy that subsequ a lso same tasks to privat hese the

¶63

¶64

SN,J wP 29115_2022

¶65

appellants' termination^{demonstratesthe inherent} need for these services. This^{act of outsourcing,} which effectively replaced^{one set of workers with} another further underscores^{that the work in} question was neither temporary nor occasional.

¶66

The landmark^{judgment of the United State} in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft^Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l^{servesas a pertinent} example from the^private sector,^{illustrating the} consequences of misclassifying^{employees to} circumvent^providing benefits.^{Inthis case,} Microsoft classified certain^{workersas independent} contractors, thereby denying^{them employee} benefits. The U.S. Court of^{Appeals for the Ninth} Circuit determined that these^{workerswere,in} fact, common-law employees^{and were entitledto} the same benefits as^{regular employees. The Coutt} noted that large Corporations^{have increasingly} adopted the^practice of^{hiring temporary} employees or independent^{contractorsas a means} of avoiding^payment of^{employeebenefits, thereby} increasing their^profits. This^{judgmentunderscores} the principle that the^{nature ofthe work} performed, rather than the label assigned^{to the} worker, should determine employment^{status and} the corresponding rights and^{benefits' It} hiqhli ohts the i diciarv's le in rectifvinq uch ssifi a e workers recelv fair treat ent.

¶67

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^{principlesare} often misinterpreted or^{misappliedtodeny} legitimate claims of^{long servingemployees.This} judgment aimed to distinguish between^"illegal" and "irregular" appointments' It cateoorlc IIv held th^at m olovees ln trreq ular aooointments^{. who were enoaq} in dulv sa nction Dosts and had rved

¶68

¶69

SN,J wp 29115 2022

¶70

n tn usl for o tha n ul n e n lon a e- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is bei ng subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of emp loyees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural foimalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary ernpioye"r, overlooking the judgment,s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is a ppropriate. hi sel tve a li tion sto s th U m s rrt nd r e IV w lzan it a! em !o swh hav rendere tndisoensable service over decades.

¶71

In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers^"on a temporary basis for extended peiiods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization,s functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines dmployee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with internationat standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contrabuting to the overall betterment of labour practices in the couniry.

¶72

In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Trib"unal

¶73

¶74

SN,J wpll9t75 J022

¶75

are set aside and the original^{applicationis allowed} to the following extent:

¶76

i. The termination orders^dated 27 .LO.20lB are^quashed ;

¶77

ll. The a ooel la nts shall be t^aken back on du forthwith and their servtces reoularised forthwith. However, the aooellant^{s shallntbe} entitled to anv oecunaarv benefits/back waoes r the riod thev have no worked for but would beentitled to continui^{tv of se} ices ame for the said oeriod an^dthe woul d be cou nted for thei r str r I benefit

¶78

The Judoment of t^heADexCo urt date 3 1-O1.20²⁵ in 2O2 IN c 144 HR LA NOT v NAGAR N IGAM GH AZT BAD,, tn DA rticular the relevant Dara os.15 to 19 are extract^ed hereu^nder:

¶79

"15. It is manifest that^{theAooel!ant Wormen} usl n red t rs v r ra some s n tn t na d V nif rn mus w not u in fu 3 the Emolo er'sf il ure furnl h such r^ecors- des ite di ions to d so-a^o w^s na dv rs^e i nference U nder wel sta blish d labour rts ru In ou w n v ual d -wa ntra le e circu mstances where thew rk is oermanent tn

¶80

¶81

SN,J \p-291'15 2022

¶82

n tu e. ora ll d e w rk rs who fulfil n m I r ul n ar fte r ar c nn t e ed u r sa ul n h b n of en tn co ra aq ree ent. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique oF indefin ite "tem pora ry,, employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:

¶83

"22. The pervasive misuse oF temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, rEfiects a oroa0er systemic issue that adversely affects y^T.!"rr: .^rights and job security. rn tnL private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led'to an increase in precarious Emptoymeni u.-nju."nt=, :l\en.lgrTr€rized^{by t_ack of 'ounuritr,} :oJl-ecurity, ano tair treatment. Such practices - have been :ll,l:::11_I91^{exptoitins workers and undeiminins} raoour standards. Government institutions, -anJ entrusted 1t1tl^{n3jro]Oingrhe principtes of fairness} .1:ustice, oear _an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector .^{entitiesengageinmisuseoftempora} ry contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental irends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

¶84

It is a disconcerting reality that temporary :Tf]"I_"^"_r,^{particutartyin governmenrinstirutions,} olten tace multifaceted forms ot exploitation. While the foundational purpose or temporaiytoni[.t, ,uv have been to address short_term o. i"ironuf-n""or, ["I Fy:^{increasingly becomea mechanism} to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long_term obliqations owed to employees. These praciic"r.inii"rt in several ways:

¶85

¶86

SN,J wp]9175 022

¶87

. Masuse of "Te Dorarv bels: Emolo^vees enoaoed for work that is essential,^recurrino, and inteqral to the functionino^{of an institution} n em "contra ctual." ev^en w^hen err roles mi rror h se o r !ar lo Su ificati rtve rke dionitv, securitv, and benefits that reoular m lo ees led ite in identica! tasks.

¶88

. 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,^{regardlessof the quality} or duration of their service. '^{Lack ofCareer} Progression: Temporary^{employees often find} themselves excluded from opportunities^{for skill} development,^{promotions,or incremental pay raises.} They remain stagnant in their^{roles, creatinga} systemic disparity between them^{and their regular} counterparts, despite their contributions^being equally significant.

¶89

. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing^{roles performedby} temporary employees, effectively^{replacingoneset} 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.

¶90

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are oFten denied^{fundamental benefits} such as^{pension, providentfund, 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."

¶91

¶92

SN,J \p 29t7s 2022

¶93

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

¶94

In tight of these considerations, the Employer's d iscontin uation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev we re enqaoed in sen ial r na th w rk I can ot reieqa ted to DerDetual uncertaintv. whiteconcerns un e a m anc wt h rut en ru mer co er lon su h con rns do o sol e m o r t tu o a ron s ne tl en I de b a ra on t m th a rt h ofw rk en wh h ve c tin usl tn de facto reqular role s for an xten ded period.

¶95

¶96

SN,J wp 29115_2022

¶97

The imo oned order of the Hioh Court, to the 6vla'r+ +har, r. nfi h A il^{rn+ tlra} rk en dailv-wa oe enoaoement without contin uitv^or IttAaltaltil'l rrl hrr kwa herahrr cai rc ide^{rerillr llra} followinq directions:

¶98

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant^Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section^6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial^{Disputes Act,} 1947, is declared illegal. All orders^or communications terminating their services^are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from^the date of their termination, for all^{purposes,including} seniority and continuity in service.

¶99

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective^{posts (or} posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this^judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence^(fro the date of +armtn rli on until ctu^rl r ln ct atemen^{+\ cti.ll} lra counted for continuitv of service and all conseo ential benefits. such as seniorit^vand elioibiliW for or motions, if anv.

¶100

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

¶101

R s ondent lo er irected t initiate a fair and transDarent Droc^{ess for} reoularizin o the Aooell nt workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement dulv conside ino the fact that thev have^oerformed Derennr I municioal duties akin to Dermanent

¶102

¶103

SN,J \P -29115 2022

¶104

DOSts. Ina ssessino reo la riza ion, the Em lover shall not i mDose educ tion a I or ro ural a f reo utrements were ever aDDlie to the AD ella nt Work eno tos imilarl situa ted reo ular em lovees !n th e ast. To the e ent hat cti ed for du exts ora re reo uired, he ResDOnde t Emo lover shall exD edite all nece sarv dmini rative processes to ensure these lonotimee Dlovee s are not indefinitelv retai ed on dailv aqes o ntra rv to statutorv and equitablenorms.

¶105

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

¶106

L2. The ADex Court in a iudqment re rted in( 20L71 L SuDrem e Cou rt Cases1 ,inSt ate of PunIab and ot hers VS it tn h d rs a an its su aras (1) (2)(3) of th said I udom nt ob rved as und er:

¶107

"54 "Ihe Full Bench of the High Court, white adjudicating upon the above controversy had conctuded, that tempcrary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The fult bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary emptoyees, who fell in. either of the two exceptions, were heli entitted to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular emptoyeeZ. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶108

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergotlng a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to a other eligibte candidates,

¶109

¶110

SN,J wp _29 17 5 _2022

¶111

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

¶112

ai ad ra AD rntees ate not ADDO'N ted aoa inst te ular san ned Dosts and t, ,t se ,ces are availed n al 'he m a lon i.e. for 70 ,,s- such dailv waoe ad hoc or con ctuel a DOtn shal^'t enti to mrntmum f the reoular Dav le thout anv allowances on assumDtion that work of vai and n suc, lono oertod of ti. e. an eauitable riah tis c ted in uch c,eteoorv D ns. Their clai, for red larizat. on. if anv. mav have to be consid'ered se ratelv in te sof leqallv oermrs'sible scheme. (j) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two monihs of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual emptoyee shalt be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,,

¶113

13. e A Cou r in2 1 9

¶114

c 47 tw r tak d ers v M e n n cul ar to ads

¶115

under:

¶116

The decision in State of rnataka v. Umade vl was rendered on 70.4.2O 06 (reoort, tn 2oo6( 4 SCC 1I In that case- a nsf B of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules retating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articie 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 courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduty with the economic

¶117

¶118

SN,J \p 29175 2022

¶119

arrangement of its affairs by the State of iB^{instrumenta lities,} nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate^{the bYpassing} of the constitutional and statutory mandates'^{This Court further} hetd that a temporary, contractual, casual or a^daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be^{made permanent} unless he had been appointed in terms of the^{relevant rules or in} adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.^{This Court} however made one exception to the above^{positionand the} same is extracted below :

¶120

"53. e asD ect needs to be cla There mav be cases wh ere irreoular a D,,ointments^(notilleoal aDDointments) as exDlat d ,n S.V. Nara NADDA 7967 7 R 724 R.^r. a 2 7 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naoaraian^{17979 (41 SCC 5O7l} nd referred bo u u pe s in dulv sanctioned vacan t Dosts^miqhthave been made nd the emolovees have continued^to work for ten Years or mote but^withoutthe intervention of orders of coutB or of tr ibunals. The^que stion of requla tion of the services of lo es idered merits i the lioht of the orincioles settl bv this Court in the cases above to and in the lioht of this udoment. In that context. the nion of India. the State Go vernments an their i nstru mentalities should take Ds to reoularize as a one-time measure. the rvices of such ir, ularlv aooointe o have wo for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned oosts but not^{undercover of} orders of the courts or of tribunals^andshould further e nsute that ular rectuitme nts are undertaken to fill those^{vecantsanctiondDosts} that reouire to be filled uo, in cases where m ra e lo rs tn now emoloved. The Drocess mu^{t be set in} otion within six mon ths from this date, ....

¶121

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

¶122

(i) The employee concerned should have worked^{for 10 years or} iore in duly sanctioned^{post without the benefit or protection of} the interim or'^{'^r} anv court or tribunal, In^{other words, the}

¶123

¶124

SN,J ,tP-?gt75-2022

¶125

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

¶126

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be iltegat, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not madi or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegat. dut where the person e.mployed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected with.out undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irreguiar.

¶127

(iii) Umadevi sts a dutv uDon the conce ed e r tali rect larize the se 's of those , ularlv aooo , ted es o rs th e n ,n o of ure a directed th t such one-tim e meas re mustbese tin th te n (rendered on tO.4. 20O61.

¶128

The term^'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in lJmadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a tist of a casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for. more than ten years without the intervention of courts a nld 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.

¶129

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees yere still pending before Courts. Consequently,^'several departments and instrumentatities did not commence the one_ time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, thb employees who were entitted to be considered in terms of para

¶130

¶131

SN,J \vp _29 l7 5 ]022

¶132

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 5i of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercrse should consider all dailywage/ad hoc/those employees who had put in 10 Years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing^the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of^para 5j^of tJmadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation^of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be consldered in tenns of Para 53 of L)madevi, are so considered.

¶133

The obiect behind the said direction in^Dd ra 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure at those who have Dut in more than ten vears of conti^nuousserurce without the Drotection of anv interim orders of^courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi^was red for u vtew their lonq rvice. Second is to errs re that the m n ,n trumentalities do oractice of em^D lo ,no l,ersons on waoe/adI eriods ca reoularize them on the oround that thev ve served for more than ten ea rs. therebv defeatino the con stitutional or statutorv Drovts,ons relatino to 'tuitment and a DDointment, The true effect of the di. nts that all Dersons who have worked for^more than^ten ts es on 70.4.2006^(th date of decision in Umadev,il without the Drotection of an v interim order of anv court^{or tribunal. in} vacant Dosts, oossessino the reouisite oual,ification-^are entitled to be considered for reoularization. Th^e fact that the emolover has not undertaken such exercise of wit. , tst Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken^{onlv in} ti title emDlovees- the rioht to be considered for^red ular,^'ization in terms of the^aho ve ttT rec?ions in Urna devi as a one-iime measure.

¶134

These appeals have been^pending for more than^{four years} after the decision in Umadevi.^The Appellant^{(Zila Panchayat,}

¶135

¶136

SN,J vrp 29 t7 5 _2022

¶137

Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in umadevi or thereafter.

¶138

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be ansidered in accordance with 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 moiths, a geieral one_ time regula.rization exercise, to find out whether tiere are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and'if so whether such employees (inctudiig the respondeits) fulfiil the requirements mentioned in para Si of lJmadevi. If they futfi them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because oflhe p6ndency of t-hese cases, then their cases sha have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needtess to s_ay t\at if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be iegularised. If the employees who have compteted ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This'appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶139

In the iu omentoft EA Cou inN hal Si nqh an others v. Sta eofP niab r Dorted tn (20 3) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Polace Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary

¶140

¶141

SN,] w_29175J022

¶142

control vested with the State. It held that the creation^{of a} cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusivety within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused^to acceDt the defence that the were no sa nction^e d^Dosts and so there was iustification for the State to u^{til ise} services of la e n U m ber of Deo D e like the a DDellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv^a conscious choice on the basis of some ratio al assessment of need. Referrin o to Umadevi t hel d that the DIlEI ants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen their i nitial aDoointment was not an 'irr ular' aooointmen as t had been made in accordance ith the statutorv rocedure rescribed un Aer t h Police Act I aAl ani h^{a C+-+a} cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled to^be ln he se tc of the n rm ot their a tn m n w re temoorarv and not aqainst a nv sanctioned Dosts created

¶143

¶144

SN,J ,/p 29175 2022

¶145

bv the State. It was held that e iud ment in Um adevi nn b ta x ta R t n iti an t ov m of P a or o u e B can su r rce s wt lr n !n ac d wl th ns on.

¶146

The iudo ent of the Dex Court r Dorte in2 o15 sc Onli L7 etw B Intv v ell e or b R c er ell f Di tc ndh Pr h o rti r

¶147

ara a I ds und

¶148

(a) We find it difficutt to accept the reasoning adopted bv the Hioh Cpurt. The right of the apoeltants to i6k reoularization fJows.from tne G,O. t'to.2lZ dffi have been i.n service of the first respondeitiol oiv orior to the issu-ance of the said G.o, but even subseiiintii ihii issue of 9.a..^{yil t?day. The respondent uunEipi@ teing} a^sratutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supri). thspite'of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of ihe appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶149

In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached th.e Tribunal betatedly, in our opinion, is' not justified. In the circum_stances, the appeat is altowed modifying'the order under appeal -by directing that the appellants, servifes be regutarised with effect from the date of their completing their iive year continuous service as was taid down by this- Court in District C-ollector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh &. Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 480,

¶150

¶151

SN,J \w _29115 _2022

¶152

In A arkant Rai v State of Bihar^{reorted (20s)8} scc 265 the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out^{in thas case was to permit} regularization of such appointment,^{which are irregular} but not illegal, and to ensure appointments,^{which are} irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emolovme nt of those^o e^{rson swhohad served the State} Government and their instrume^{ntalitiesformore thn ten} vea rs" In that c se, emolovee was^{worino for 29vears.} This decisron a^OD roves arlier vieua exoressedⁱⁿ M.L.Kesari extracted abov^e.

¶153

L7. In state of Jarkhand^{vKamal Prasad reDorted in} 20L4 c 223 ilar v ww sta nb Suoreme Cou rt and it was held^{as follows:}

¶154

"47.... n view of the cateoorical ndino of fact on the relevant contentious , ue that the soondent em lovees have c ntinued in th eir^{service formore than 7} vears ntinu t, I, I, wnb this Co rt ,n Um adevi case^(State of rnataka v Umade vt 4SCC7 2 6 [&s 3 I, 53 re aDDli to the Dresent cases The Division Bench f^the Court h sn h eld that re on emolovees are entitled for t e relief. the^same cannot be intertered with bv this C'ourt."

¶155

¶156

SN,J w]9t75-2022

¶157

1E. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed an W.p.No.27602 ol 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.93t ol 2O23 dated 10.1O.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.32847 ot 2024.

¶158

The iudoment of the ADex Court in Hari Krishna M dir T Sta fM rash r d re IR 2 u 39 din ul r

¶159

No .1OO and 10 t held s follows:

¶160

'100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-boun dto ercrse uch er er e rnm ora a

¶161

has failed to ex rclse or has wronol exe sed dis etion conferred u Don it bv a statu .orarul e. or a licv de tston o th e Governm entorhas exercised u hdi tion mal e n an

¶162

con sideratton.

¶163

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.,,

¶164

¶165

SN,J \w 29175 2022

¶166

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 1O.O6.2013 Dassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 ot 2OL2 while uoholdinq the Judqment dated O8.O9.2O10 passed in W.P.No.24377 oJ 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:-

¶167

"Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt- Corpora tion also issued various office ord ers/circu la rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest belng 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders. as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

¶168

2L. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated L9.O9.2OL7 Dassed in w.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7

¶169

orted in 2O18 2 ALD e 282 at ara 16 and ara

¶170

observed as under:-

¶171

"16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of india. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1,994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f

¶172

¶173

SN,J wp 29175_2022

¶174

persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.!994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in uma Devi,s case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg ula rization/a bsorption exist. There re. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.21 . dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the tn n sh ini r lower the traiectorv of the dire ions issued bv the Suore e Court in Pa ra 53 of its iu qment in U,,, Devi's I^l narrniccih far ilra resoon ents to take helter un der Act 2 ol 1994 a nd G.o. Ms. No.212, dated 22,4.1994, to deny reoularization to +ha f e wh h. Fadlrr G.ii ad flia Par N the u Deyi's case (suora ).

¶175

For the aforementioned reasons, order. dated Zl .6.ZOl7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and wr ron ! wt h h h res DOn ents to consider reoula risation of the se ices of the ne itioners aoa inst the extsttno vacancres of Work InsDe ors and aDDo nt them subi ct to their satisfvinq the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma vi's case⁽ suora). This llroce ss must be comDleted within two months fro m the date of receiot of a coov of this order -"

¶176

The Divi sion Bench of this Court in its Judo ment dated t.o4.2(,2o Das in I.A .No s.1 of 2O2O in 1 ol 20L9 and w. P.No.23O57 of 2019 reoorte an 2O2O(4)A D Daqe 7 r 48 and ar bserv a

¶177

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

¶178

¶179

SN,J \vp 29175 2022

¶180

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.

¶181

It is not known whv the 1st resoo dent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi 's ca e (suDra'1, as exD lained in .L. Kesar 's case⁽ su D ra I an undertaken a ne-ⁱ tm x ca zrf nranr rtn h ti C dzi w emDlovees who had worked for more than ten (10) vears without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.4.2006 and subject them to a process verificataon as to whether thev are workino aoainst vac nt Dosts and possess reouisite oualaficataons for the oosts, and if so, reoularize therr servrces.

¶182

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 76 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resDonden ts are directed to reoul a rize on one-time basis 'servi e each of th eti rone comDlete 10 ears of servace on dailv waqes from the initial dates of their aDooint ment. But, thev shall not be entitled to a n monetarv relief. The said exercise shall be done within o⁽²⁾ weeks from the da of receipt of f heo r

¶183

This Court pines that in the Dresent case, the resoon dents failed to discha rqe their dutv in examrnrnq the reouest of the Detitioners for re ularization of Detitioners' se ices, who is workino a s full tame sweeDer ,a n.l further con^cielar fhair. re t^t r t fha m ora erv of n rs tn h r e of full time sweeoer as reo lar one for a lou rDoses bv qrantino Iast orade Dav with Deriodical increme t revised

¶184

¶185

SN.J wp 29175 _2022

¶186

from time to timefr o the dat of aooointment of the petitioners, in accordance to taw.

¶187

This Cou rt oD es that tione rs are entitl d for cons ideration of Detitioners'cas e for orant of the rel ef as a e e r Wri on tn of h observations oft heA ex Co u rnv arious iudo ments d n a e and h ew f Divisi on Bench of this Court in the Judo ments referred to and extracted above.

¶188

Takino into considera tion: -

¶189

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5

¶190

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

¶191

i)(2o2o) ,. SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) SCc Page 396

¶192

¶193

SN,J \,p -2917 5 -2021

¶194

(iii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l SCC 148 (vi) 2o1O(9)sCC247 (vii) (2013) 14SCc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) I scC 26s (x) (2014) 7 SCC223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379

¶195

d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶196

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

¶197

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above).

¶198

¶199

¶200

SN,J w_29^{t't 5_2022}

¶201

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

¶202

h tP ni w the ers r utthe one reou larization of oetitioners'servtces- and also the claim th ition r t a rvr of

¶203

e rs ln la Swe sre

¶204

one for all ourDoses bv orantino last orade oav with periodical increm ents revise from time to time from the date of ao ointment of the oetitio ers and all consequential benefits. dulv en losino al! the rel va nt docu ments in suDDort of oetition ers'case as Dut-forth in the o sent writ etition. within a oeriod of one (O 1 ) week from the date recei rrt oJ coDv rrf the order and the resoo dents shall examin e and consader the same tn acco ance to la in confor itv with o nciDles of natu ral b idin t r hea rin e on r erm or er sed h rem Co u tn Uma Devi's ca s reDo rte ln 20 o6 4) SCC Paqe 1,

¶205

ud t a inW 4 7 oo7

¶206

2 Ore in 2O11 D 4an

¶207

SN.J w^29t152022

¶208

).L

¶209

confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.06.2013, and also as oer Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2OO7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD Daqe 282 and also the Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD paqe 379 which had attained finalitv. within a Deriod of four^(O4) weeks from the date of receiot of a coDv of this order, dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the Aoex Court in the variou s iudqments^(referred to and extracted above). and in o rticular, Dara No.53 of the iudqment of the Aoex Court in the case of State of Karna ka v. Uma Devi and dulv communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shall be no der as to costs.

SN,I wp 29t13 2022

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶214

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶215

Sd/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI //TRUE COPY//^{ASSISTANTFISTRAR} SECTION OFFICER^/

¶216

To,