Kolipaka Laxman Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Kolipaka Laxman Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed without costs: respondents (Law Department, Finance & Planning Department, Director of Prosecutions) directed to consider the petitioner's detailed representation and grant the prayed relief - treatment of his 42-year contingent service as full-time sweeper as regular in the last grade post with last grade pay and periodical increments, and reckoning of contingent service for qualifying service for pension/gratuity benefits - in accordance with the cited judgments (esp. para 53 of Umadevi and this Court's W.A. 782/2010, W.P. 27217/2017 and W.P. 23057/2019 lines) within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, and to communicate the decision; pending miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action/inaction in not treating the petitioner's services as regular in the last grade post - despite 42 years' contingent service as full-time worker cum sweeper (NMR) - is unjust, unfair and arbitrary, warranting a declaration and a direction to treat the services as regular from the date of appointment. +2 more

Court's answer

The court opined that the respondents failed to discharge their duty in examining the petitioner's request for regularisation of his services rendered as full-time sweeper in the last grade post, and that the petitioner's services in the last grade post of full-time sweeper are to be treated as regular for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is entitled to consideration of his case for grant of the relief prayed for in the writ petition, in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments referred to and extracted above, and the views of the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments referred to and extracted above.

Key takeaways

Operative directive: notwithstanding the Government Pleader's contention that no mandamus could issue absent a prior representation, the respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the relief flowing from the cited judgments/orders of this Court (which had attained finality) within four (04) weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, duly taking into consideration the observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court (as extracted above), in particular para No. 53 of Umadevi, and to duly communicate the decision to the petitioner; the petitioner's grievance is first to be placed by way of detailed representation and considered in accordance with law within a reasonable period.ratio¶240

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 29311 of 2021 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Special Original Jurisdiction; Surepalli Nanda, J.; decided 19.08.2025) - ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. Petitioner, a full-time worker cum sweeper (NMR) in the office of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, District Court, Warangal district, with 42 years' contingent service, sought declaration that the respondents' refusal to treat his services as regular in the last grade post was arbitrary (Arts. 14, 16, 21, 39(d), 43, 300-A), and directions to reckon contingent service for qualifying service for pension/gratuity with monetary benefits, invoking Apex Court decisions including C.A. 6798/2019 (para 36), Avtar Chand, Netram Sahu and the Full Bench W.A. 1222/1999. Although the Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) contended that no mandamus could issue since the petitioner's grievance had not been addressed to the respondents by way of representation, the Court held (paras 23-24) that the respondents failed to discharge their duty in examining the regularisation request and that the petitioner is entitled to consideration of the relief sought in view of the extracted Apex Court observations (Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 para 53; 1990 (2) SCC 396; Jaggo Anita 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209; 2025 INSC 144; Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148; M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247; (2013) 14 SCC 65; 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1797; Amarkant Rai (2015) 8 SCC 265; Kamal Prasad (2014) 7 SCC 223; W.A. 937/2023-SLP 32847/2024; Hari Krishna Mandir Trust AIR 2020 SC 3969; M.L. Singh (2009) 8 SCC 400) and the Division Bench views of this Court (W.A. 782/2010 confirming W.P. 24377/2007; W.P. 27217/2017; W.P. 23057/2019). Respondents directed to act accordingly within four weeks of receipt of the order and communicate the decision; miscellaneous petitions closed.

a32521

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

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY^{OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NAN}

WRIT PETITION :29311 OF 21

Between:

Kolioaka Laxman. S/o late K. Narasimha, aqed^{about 51 years' Working as} iull' time Workei cum Sweeper^{(NMR) in--the officeof AssistantPublic} Prosecutor, District Court, Janlaon,^{Warangal District, TS.}

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Telangana, rep.^{by its Principal Secretary,Law Department,} Govt. of Telangana Secretariat.^Hyderabad.

The State of Telangana,^{rep. by its Principal Secretary,Finance& Planning} Department, Govt.;f Telangan'a,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

The Director of Prosecutions,^{Govt. ofTelangana'Hyderabad.}

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226^{ot lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue an order or directron more^{particularlyonein thenature_of writ} of Mandamus to declare^{the action of the Respondentsin not treatingthe} services of^petitioner as^{regular one in the lastgradepost, even after exhauslof} life energies and^youth in 42^{long years contingent service, as unjust,unfair,} arbitrary and violition of^{Article14, 16' 21, 39 (d), 43 & 300.(A)of our} constitution in denying^{legitimate lrving wages of regularly engaged.lastgrade} post and prays to ciireit ttie 1st Respondents^{hereinto treat the services of the} petitioner' as regular one from the^{date of appointmentof the petitionerby} applying the decision^{and principle laid by the Honble SupremeCourt in.para36} SZ-in the Judgement^{in C.A.No.6798/2019 & Batch Cases dated02-09-} 2019 "11b (2019⁽¹⁰⁾ SCC^{516) in C.A. No. 1254of 2018 to reckoncontingent} services of^{petitionerfor computation of qualifying serviceto grant of pension,} gratuity and other retirement benefits^{withall consequential monetary benefits} including seniority with arrears^{of pay from date of appointment of petitionerto till} date in iegularly engaged^{contingent sweeper alongwith periodical increments,} as revised- from' time to time^{with '100 percentage compensationas per principle} taid by full bench of this Honble^{courtin w.A.No.1222 of 1 999 dated16-1 0-2000} along with Apex court^{in the caseof Unionof lndia vs. Avtar Chand in c.A.No.}

3416 - 3445 of^{2010 & BatchCasesdated 19-02-2019 (ALD3 of 2019 SC 32)} and Netram sahu^{Vs. State of chattisgarh& Anr. in civil AppealNo-1254 of} 2018, dated 23-03-2018^{by applying principleslaid down by the HonbleApex'} Court under Article^{141 of our Constitution.}

lA NO: 1 oF 2021

petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto} direct the respondents^{herein to release time scale pay of last grade post on par} with regularly engaged^{last grade employee for'rendering 42 years long} contingJnt servicJ is^{contingent sweeperalong with periodicalincrements} revised from time to^time.

Counset for the Petitioner:^{SRICH. GANESH}

counsel for the Respondents:^{sRt M.v. RAMA RAO (SPL. GP) /} ASST. GP FOR SERVICES

The Court made the following:^ORDER

2

SN,J

WRIT PETITION No.29311 OF 2O21

o/o 19.O8.2025

Between:

Kolipaka Laxman

.. Petitioner

And

$^{The State of Telangana & Others}

Respondents

< Gist:

Head Note:

! Counse! for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Ganesh

^Counsel^{for Respondents:AGP for Services (Home)}

? Cases Referred:

396

iv v vt 97

3969 xii

3

SN,J

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

RIT PETITION N 2 F

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assastant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents

The Detit on r aooroached the Court s kino oraver

as under:

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ oF Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in the last grade post even after exhaust of life energies and youth in 42 long years contingent service as unjust unfair arbitrary and violation of Article L4, L6, 21, 39(d),43 & 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages of regularly engaged last grade post and prays to direct the 1't Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one from the date of appointment of the petitioner by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 36 and 37 in the Judgment in C.A.No.6798/2019 and Batch Cases dated 02.09.2019, (20L9 (10) SCC 516) in C.A.No.1254 of 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension gratuity and other retirement benefits with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority with arrears of pay from date of appointment of petitioner to till date in regularly engaged contingent sweeper along

LOnstltutlOn : lfl:^{.O€tlvll'lQ} leqttlmate livln0 WaOeS Or

4

SN,J

with periodical increments as revised from time to time with 100o/o compensation as per principle laid by full bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No. L222 of t999 dated 16.10.2000 along with Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 34L6 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases, dated 19.02.2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) and Netram Sahu Vs State of ihattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018, d;ted 23.03.2018 by applying principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article l4l- of our Constitution and pass....."

rln n alf n crn an th erm n m th affi avit fil In.s DDort the oresent writ oe tion tnr o Detationer with the resDondents herein for more thana d n e h reli as Dr ved for in the o sent rit oeti ron.

PERUSED T E RECO D:-

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the petitioner submits that. the subiect issue in the oresent cas rs souarelv covered bv he order of this Court, dated o8.o .2O10 o tn P.No.24 77 ot 20O7 reoorted an 2011 (1) ALD, Paoe 23 con rmed in W.A.No.7 2ot

<br>

5

SN,J

2O1O. dated 1O.O6.2O13 and also order, dated 19.O9.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.27217 of 2O17 report€Lln 2018 (2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379.

E Ac<iclrnl Garra rnlnart+ PI^arrla r^fn I^Garrrirac (Home) aooearino on behalf of the resoondents submits ha h fl n as ut-forth in h Dresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the resoondents herein as o date and therefore, the Detitioner cannot comDlain inaction on the Dart of resDondents herein in considerino the o evance of the etitioner an^A h n +ha aliaf rc nra vaA Jar hrr +h Detitaoner in the Dresent Wit Detition cannot be^qranted and no Mandamus can be is ued aqaanst the resDondents

it era sou h t r n ma I directed to Dut-forth the Detationer's^qrievance as Dutforth in the oresent Writ Petition bv wav of a detailed reDresentation to the resDondents herein and uDon receiot of the said representataon, the Iesoondents would consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable^period.

i I i

6

SN,J

6 UN ar of e r s di u mi to a ne st v m t f m

appearino on behalf of the respondents

7 n 2 o si v tat t ar d an ot ers. t oara36 eld as under:

"36. There are some of the em ployees who have not been regularized in spite of havin g rendered the services for 3O40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision 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 Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case those employe es who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been 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 pensio n as if they have retired

j .,.,.]:}:,

7

SN,J

Literate Dailv Waqe Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 199O(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid orinciole that the State should not keep a oerSon in temoorary or persons as reoular one.

Para No.53 of the of the^judqment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated 10.04.2O06 reoorted in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted

hereunder:-

:l appointments) as explained in S.V. Naravanappa t1967 (1) SCR 1281, R.N. Nanjundappa 11972⁽¹⁾ been made and the emolovees have' continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the coufts or of tribunals. The^question of reoularization of the services of such emolovees may have to be conbidered on merits in the liqht of the principles settled bv this Court in the

'iL .lEr it . . i.::!ii,::l-

8

SN,J

courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruit ents are undertak n to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts that reouire to be filled uo, nca whe re temoorarv emolovees or dailv waqers are beino now emoloved. The orocess must be set in motion within six mo ths from this ate. ....

The iudqment of t e Aoex Cou dated 2O .12.2024, reDorted in 2024 La Suit(SC) 12O in Jaooo Anita and v fIn r he DaraqraDh Nos.12, 13.24. 6, 27 and 28 are extracted hereu nder:

"12. Despate being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearty two decades. their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

The claim bv the respondents that these were not reoular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aooellants was oerennial and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the

9

SN,J

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

The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth . e.irffilt* determ Hed*,thbt .these" lsorkdise w€lE;n16 *:-=.. fact, common-law employees and were entiued to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. ft hiohlio ts the iudiciarv's role in ctifvino such misctassifications and ensurinq that workers receive fair treatment.

While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between^,'illegal', and "irregular" appointments. ft cateqoricallv held that emolovees in trreo lar aoooin ents, who were enoaqed in dulv sanctioned oosts and had served

l0

SN.J

continuouslv for more than ten vear should be con idered for ularization as a onetime measure. However, the laudable intent of the^judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases Where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural Formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization,exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's expliclt acknowledgment of cases where regularization is approp riate. This sel ctive aoolication distorts the iudqment's soirit and ouroose, effectivelv weaoonizino it aqainst emolovees who have rende d indisoensable services over decades.

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

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

I

SN,J

1t

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

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

ii. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services reoularised forthwith. However, the aooellants shall not be entitled to anv oecuniarv benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not wo d for but would be entitled to co tinuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same would be coun for their Dostretiral benefits."

The Judoment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2025 din2 2 I RIPAL AND AN NAGAR NIGAM. GHAZIABAD". in particular. the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

"15.rt ts mant that the Aooella t Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several vears. sometimes soannino more than a decade. Even if certai n muster rolls were not o uced in full. the Em D ov r's failure to furn ishs ch recordsdesoite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-establish labour iurisorudence. Indian labour Iaw stronolv disfavors peroetual dailv-waoe or contractual enoaqements in circumstan ces where the work s ermanent in

12

SN,J

natu Moral and I llv. vuor who fulfil -il aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite^{..temporary,,} employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:

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

It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to ZO24 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in severa I ways:

l3

SN.J

rv" I ahels: Emnloweesahels: EmnloweesEmnlowees rrtn

a Misuse of "TemDor rv" I ahels: Emnloweesahels: EmnloweesEmnlowees rrtn "contractual-" even w en fhair roles rnirror u r

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

. 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.

. 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. "

14

SN,J

The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenily, 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.

L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the were enqaoe in nnr u th ork n rele^qated DE ual u certaan whi e con rns ti wa recruitment rules merit consideration. such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv .oblioations n d bu ucratic limitations nnot trumD the leoiti ate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto rilar ro sforan extended oe od.

15

SN,J

meaninqful back wages, is herebv set aside with the followins directions:

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. IndustriA,l" 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.

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 period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuitv of service and all eligibility for oromotions, if anv.

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

months from the date of reinstatement, duly

't ... : ':^.:t.:: "'^{..rr.r..:- ::".} : j .'?.-,:' ...' :f,--

t6

SN,J

Dosts. In assesstn reou la rization, the Emolover shall not imoos educational or Drocedural criteria retroactivelv if such '.eft^utra enlc wer^e pvar ann tiaA t.! th Aooella t Workmen o to similarlv situated reoul r emolovees an the Dast. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are ouired, the Re Dondent Emolo er shall exoedi all necessarv dministrative orocesses to ensure these lonotime emplovees are not indefini telv retained on dailv waoes co trarv to statuto and eouitabl norms.

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."

L2. The Aoex Court in a iudoment reoorted in (2017) 1 Suore e Couft Cases 148, in State of Puniab an others vs laoiit Sinoh and others at paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3 of the said iudqment observed s under:

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

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

t7

SN,J

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

(2) But if dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractual appointees are not aDDointed aqainst reoular sanctioned osts and their seruices are availed attaliatutttc Itt tttilh ,'a}ia I hraak< hv the Ci.rfa Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lona oeriod i.e. for 70 vearc. such dailv waoers, ad hoc or contractual aopointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reoular Dav scale without anv allowances on the assumDtion that work of Derennial na re is avaitable and ha worked for such lono of time. an eou ble rioht is created in such cateoory of persons. Their claim for reoularization. if anv. mav have to be considercd separatelv in terms of legallv oermissible scheme.

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

The iudoment of the Apex Court reported in 2O1O(9) sec 247 between: State Karnataka and others v

M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as under:

The decis in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 orrted in 2006 U) 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 cou rts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the cou tts must be careful in ensuring that they do not inteffere unduly with the economic

l8

SN,J

arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facititate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a tdmporary, 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 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

"5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against^' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled :

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribuna!. In other words, the

l9

SN.J

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

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned^posts .or where the^persons appointed do not possess the^prescribed minimum^{qualifications,} the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

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

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the onetime regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undeftook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the^ground that thbir 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

.Eq,-.-.

r)

20

SN,J

53 of the decision in tJmadevi, wilt 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 S3 of tJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider ail dailywage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous seruice as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of apy interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some emproyees who were entitled to tlte benefit of para 53 of llmadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise wirt be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

8, Thi obiect, behind the said direction in para 53 of

oractice of emolowina on dailv- waoe/ad-

measure.

These appeals haue been pending for more than four years after the decision in umadevi. The Appellant (Zita panchayat,

Gd
a'-

, .: ,,:',. :-,,.,,,,, ,,,,

2L

SN,J

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

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only fufther direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendency of these casesl then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary

22

SN,J

control vested with the state. rt held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively 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. rt also refused to

tf

23

SN,J

its tnstrume lities and neither the Government of

R l-il

'I 7 n

(7)

G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 272(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appetlanis approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) scc 4a0.

24

SN,J

In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2015) 8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regutarization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emolovment of those oersons who had served the State Government a d their instrumentalities for more than ten vears". In that case, emolovee was workinq for 29 vears. This decision aDoroves earlier view expressed in M.L.Kesari racted above.

In State of Jarkhand v Kama! Prasad reported in (20L4t 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken bv the

Suoreme Court and it was held as follows :

^47.... In view of the caf€oorical findina of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent emplovees have continued in their seruice for more than ,O vears continuouslv therefore, the leoal oriiciole laid down by this Court in Umadevi case^(State of Karnataka v llmadevi

z5

SN,J

The Judgment of this Court dated o6.12.2o22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ol 2024.

The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna lrlandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in particular oara Nos.lOO and tO1 held as follows:

*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 duW-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a oublic authority has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.

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."

26

SN,J

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment

irrT rl

"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 appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu lars dated ZO.LZ.Lggg, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees. It is also to be seen that Section 25_ T 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 2S-t of tne 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.,,

2L.

da 19.O9_ O17 rta tn -P-No-27 217 of 2.J17

"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 L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f

27

SN,J

persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to one-time public posts, consciously ordered for absorption/regu 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.L994, 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 u larization/absorption exist.

fha nalilianara rerha hrrra c'+iaCiad +tra "lrnit+-'lh,

For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 20t4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and

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

28

SN,J

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.

r is not k own whv he 1st resDondent h s not withou t the interventi on of the Cou and Tribuna ls as on 6 wh er thev a workino aoainst vacant D and oossess reouisite oualifications for the oosts. and if so, reoularize their services.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejeating the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles t4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resoondents are directed to reoutarize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the oetitioners a i al rra:r Fc f car.viaa nn ,I nr fha copy of the order."

This ourt oDines that in the Dresent ca the respondents failed to discharqe their duw in examinino the request of the Detitioner for requlariza on of petitioner's servaces, who is workino as ful! time sweeper service of the^petitioner in the last qrade post of futt time sweeper as reoular one for al! ourDoses bv orantino last qrade av with Derio ical incremen revised from tame to

I

29

SN,J

time from the date of aoooi ntment of the Detitioner, an accordance to law.

This Court ootn es that oetitioner is ent tled for consideration of Detitioner's case for orant of the relief as praved for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in various iudqments I r red to and^aYt r^rafad rlrarral rnd the vi I^lha Division Benc of thas Court in the Judoments referred to and extra d above.

Taktno tn consideration:-

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf ofthe respondents.

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

ix2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396

a)

SN,J

30

(iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2(J24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2ot7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(e) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xa) SLP No.32847 ot 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

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

e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.z7ztZ of 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above),

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.04.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above).

*q,

3l

SN,J

9)^{In the light of discussion and conclusion as} arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order.

al r increments sed from time to time from the date of

nrnrrialina anrrar.ir rrtihr aC naraan=l !.:rrar f,r +116 7

o

32

SN,J

f:.

confirmed in W.A..No.782 of 2010 dated 1o.o6.2o13 and also as oer Division Bench Judqment of this court dated 19.09 .2Ot7 o tn W.P.N o.27217 ot 2OO7 reDo in 20L8( 2)ALD D e 282 a also the Division Bench r.A.Nos.1 of 2o20 in 1 of 2o19 in w.p.No.23o57 of 2019 reoorted in 2o2o(4'tALD oaqe 379 which had attained finalitv, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of pt of a coDv of this r, dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down by thF Apex Court t tq extracted above) and in oarticular para No.53 of the i\doment of the Apex court in the case of state of Karnataka v. llma Devi and dulv cammunicate the decision to the petitioner. However there shail be no order as to costs. ,

Miscellaneous petitions, if dfly, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed.

SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

OFFICER

One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble MRS JUSTICE SUR NDA (For His Ladyships kind perusal)

To, 1 The Princioal secretaly, !a.w Department, The state of Telangana, Govt. of Telang and Secretariit, hvo 6rrdJJ.'^"

t

The Principal Secretary,^{Finance andPlanning Department, The State of}

Telanoand. Govt. of T6lanqana, Secretariat, Hyderabad'

:. fhe Olrector of Prosecutiois,^{Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad'}

11LRCopies

S. fn. UnoJ, SLcretary,^{Union of lndia, Ministryof Law, Justice and Company} Affairs, New Delhi.

O tr.,e Se.i"iary,^{TelanganaAdvocates Association,Library, HighCourt} Buildinos. Hvderabad.

7 one Cd to Snt CH GANESH,^Advocate IOPUC]

b il; ccrio sniut^{v. RAMA RAo, SPLGP, Hidh court for the state of} Telanqana. [OUT]

I rW; Cts to'GP^{FbRSERVICES,High Courtfor the State of Telangana'} louTl

10.Two CD Copies BN BS

\c-

p

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/08/2025

\ \

s
(.
()(.)
10 rtB ?$?fi
* *

ORDER

WP.No.29311 of²⁰²¹

ALLOWING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

,Q(* c.',1 cl&.-

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents' action/inaction in not treating the petitioner's services as regular in the last grade post - despite 42 years' contingent service as full-time worker cum sweeper (NMR) - is unjust, unfair and arbitrary, warranting a declaration and a direction to treat the services as regular from the date of appointment.¶48
The court held
The court opined that the respondents failed to discharge their duty in examining the petitioner's request for regularisation of his services rendered as full-time sweeper in the last grade post, and that the petitioner's services in the last grade post of full-time sweeper are to be treated as regular for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner, in accordance with law.ratio¶213
2.
Whether the petitioner's contingent service is to be reckoned for computation of qualifying service for grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits, with consequential monetary benefits including seniority and arrears of pay.¶48
The court held
The petitioner is entitled to consideration of his case for grant of the relief prayed for in the writ petition, in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments referred to and extracted above, and the views of the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments referred to and extracted above.ratio¶218
3.
Whether, in the absence of a prior representation addressed to the respondents (as contended by the Assistant Government Pleader), mandamus can be issued, and the manner and time-frame within which the respondents must consider the petitioner's grievance.medium confidence¶62
The court held
Operative directive: notwithstanding the Government Pleader's contention that no mandamus could issue absent a prior representation, the respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the relief flowing from the cited judgments/orders of this Court (which had attained finality) within four (04) weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, duly taking into consideration the observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court (as extracted above), in particular para No. 53 of Umadevi, and to duly communicate the decision to the petitioner; the petitioner's grievance is first to be placed by way of detailed representation and considered in accordance with law within a reasonable period.ratio¶240