Writ petition allowed directing respondents to consider the petitioner's regularization and pay benefits in accordance with law and previous precedents within one week, without costs.
Direction to consider regularization and grant regular grade pay with increments within one week.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
I32s2l
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 31161 OF 2022
Between:
T.Devakamma, Wo Anjaiah, Aged about 57 years, Occ. working as Temporary Sweeper on compassionate grounds, P.S. Bu ddaram, Natgonda District
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 12.07 .2OO5 nor regularizing her services even on completion of 17 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with effect from 12.O7.2OO5 to till date from time to time with arrears as per GO Ms. No. 687 dated 03-10-1977 and GO Ms. No. 661 dated 2310-2008 to till date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article 14, 16,21,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of lndia by subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to her helpless conditions of poverty, poor social, economical
and political background by taking it as advantage b1, the respondents in continuing her on pittance wages of Rs. 1623/- p.m. arc prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitil rer in the last grade post of sweeper as regular one for all purposes by grantirrr last grade pay with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date rf appointment of the petitioner for working 17 long years without any service prory ess with 1 00 percent compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid b1, he Honble Supreme Court in C A. No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 dated 19-02-2019 irr :he case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) and in the cas r of Prem Singh Vs. State of UP and Batch cases (reported in 201910 SCC 51ij in paras 36 and 37), in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh anrl Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-2018, followed by DB Orders ssued in the case of Kadar Basha in WP No. 26788 of 2017 dated 10-08-20 1 ' (DB) with cost by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Conslitution.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mzil be pleased to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the p,: tioner provided on compassionate grounds by 5th respondent in temporary pcslof sweeper as per GO Ms. No.687 dated 03-10-1977 and GO Ms. No.661 ( ated 23-10-2008 as regular one in the last grade post forthwith by paying last grac: time scale benefits to the petitioner with periodical increments revised from time t, time.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR SERVICT:r i-ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI PRADEEP REt)l )y KATTA, SC FOR MPPZPP
The Court made the following: ORDER
2
SN, J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF T LANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.31161 OF 2022
olo L4.O7.2025
Between:
Sri Bandari Parvathalu
Petitioner
And
$The State of Telangana & Others
Respondents
< Gist: > Head Note:
! Cou nsel for the Petitioner Sri Ch.Ganesh
^Counselfor Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP for Services-Il
^Counselfor RespondentNos.4 & 5: Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel
? Cases Referred:
i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (aii) 2025 rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2O13) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o15) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223
3
SN, J
(xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 ScC 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD pase 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379
4
SN. J
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.3116I OF 2022
ORDER
Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counSel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5.
"...pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporarypost of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 12.O7.2005 nor regularizing her services even on completion of 17 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits withperiodical increments from time to time with effect from 12.07. 2OO5 to till date from time to time with arrears as per GO. Ms. No. 687, dated 03.tO.L977 and GO. Ms. No. 661 dated 23.10.2008 to till date is highly
I
)
SN, J
unjust and unfair as per Article 14, 16, 21 , 39(d), 43 and 300(A) of Constitution oF India b,r subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement c Je to her helpless conditions of poverty poor socia eco n om ica I and political background by taking it as a: rantage by the respondents in continuing her on pittar( 3 wages of Rs. 1623/ p.m and prays to direct the respol lent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioner in the last grade post oF sweeper as regular one for all p urposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increrr. lnt revised from time to time from the date of appointr ent of the petitioner for working 17 long years without , ny service progress wiih 100% compensation on arrea.: of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon,ble Suprerr 3 Court in C.A.No. 3416-3445 of 2010, dated 19.02.;,r 19 in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand (201) 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of prem Singh Vs State cf UP and Batch cases reported in 2019 10 SCC 516 r paras 36 and 37 in the case of Netram Sahu V; State of Chattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No 121; : of 2018 dated 23.03.2018 followed by DB Orders is:rr ed in the case of Kadar Basha in Wp. No. 26788 of .,. )17 dated 10.08.2017 (DB) with cost by apptying aforesaid principle laid by the Honble Apex Court under I rticle 141 of our Constitution and pass...,.
3 r e u s tn n 1 rlf of the ti er ct reli ce e v ts q rade in the
6
SN. J
affidavit filed in suooort of the oresentwritoetition r tntn tn a r to he serv ndered b oetitioner with the respon d ntsherean formo re than a decade ntends that the Detitioner is entitled for the r for in th r wn etitio n
PERUSED THE RECORD:-
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
4 Learned counsel aooearinq on b half ofthe itioner subm the sub ect is R he rese case rs sq uarelv covered bv he order of this Court. dated 08.09.2010 oassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 reDortedln 2011(1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed inW.A.No.782 of 201O, dated 1O.O6.2O13 and also order. dated1.o9.20L7 oassed in W.P.No.27217 ot217 reoortedin 201A (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21'04.2O20 oassedin W.P.No.2 O57 ot 2019 reoor ed in2O2O(4) ALDPaoe379.
s LA,A rnedc+2 ri.l i.'t ar arr uns r rrrraa ri ntr rtrt he half t fho resoonden t No.4 submits that theqrievance ofthe e ras u hint n Writ Petiti ha been addressed to the dents herein as on date and
l
SN. J
th r th ton r no c n f cti nonth r1 l orievance of the oetitioner and hence, the retief as ora y 3d forbv the e ti er e es t it ti n nr( t beqra nted an M nd u can er su arn t tht re Dond ents h eu der ass ou ht for and the DE itic ner mav be di -f th e e to r s rlev tnce as putfo hi t e es tw it eti ion b wa lfa detailed representa tion to the resD on dents heretn and UD on ec I e id e en ati e s cr dents u ld n d e a tna co an o lar r, within a ea on le eriod.
6.L ar d ouns la ari alf of t_ re oetitioner d not dispute the sa id submrssa on mad bl the I a rned st di unsel ao Dea rinq on behalf of th r sDo ndent No.4
7 The Apex Court in the iudoment reoorte([ in (2O2O) 1 tn r v a U ar I radesh a nd h s r 6 s er
"36. There are some of the employees who hav€, .tot been regularized in spite of having rendered tne-re*ii, s for 30-
8
SN. J
40 or more years whereastheyhave been superannuated. As they have workedin the work-chargedestablishment. not against anyparticularproject, their services ought to have been regularizedunder the Government instructions and even asper thedecision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi(3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that incase services havebeen rendered for more than tenyears wjthout the cover of the Court's order, as one-timemeasure, the servicesbe regularized of such employees.in the facts of the case, those employeeswhohave worked for ten years or more should have been regularized.It would not be proper to regulate them for considerationof regularizationas others have been regularized, wedirect that their services be treated as a regularone. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitledto claimingany duesof difference in wages had they beencontinued in serviceregularly before attaining the ageof superannuation.They shall be entitled to receive thepensionas if they have retired f rom he reoular establish men and the n lces rendered trv them rioht fromthedav thev ntered work-c s n sh u o ual ifv no service forourooseof Denston.
Para of th t u n he h st f Kar kaa her Vs. evt d
9
o 4 oo 0 6 4 c ls extracted
SN, J
h ereunder: -
'53. One as e needs tobecla rified. gre a b a eot tm en rtse rlai e ot tm nt ( n ot illeqal 1 67 1 c L2 R. an un V.a _ Naravanapoa dc40ef dB a ra an I 7 uI,a 4 I1scc 972(5071)1 a 5 b ve of ! ulvqualified rs s n ul san on d vac nt o b nm dea t; miqht have eem lo e h v lonti n ued to or or a or m r it e b t with out the en ion of order s of the cou rts oroftr ibun a ls. T e uestionofr quiarization ofthe er /lc sofsu h the Iiocrh of smth v b c ns e ed n r ts in DTrnca Dless ttled Vt hi I Court in the c esa OV ref rred to andi nth e .t q ht oft his sI qt en vInnthat con text, thEU nio n I ,fI di t e a dth tr tn ! u me nta lities h k s e re lariz a ao ne-ti me w s av th or e f, of ensu h irrer ortul III / rappointed.in dul n b t n r V ( rrders of the u r b a d h fu h r e sureth at ar r t n u n vin caa t whn r te sr t t eo lr to I ) fillre fi lledth so. a tn n we or( ailv waoers T e ce tTll Is be set tn m ti it n tx t fr m hi d te
l0
SN, J
"12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers, " the a ppella nts performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctionedposts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
r
ll
SN, J
the same benefits as regular em ployees. The Court noted that large Corporations have incre ri sing ly adopted the practice of hiring tenr )ora ry employees or independent contra ctors as a neans of avoiding payment of employee benefits, Il ereby ncreasing their profits. Thi s judgment under ;cores the principle that the nature of the work perfo rm ed, rather than the label assi gned o the worker should determine employment statL s and the corresponding rights and benefi :: It h hri ts e di tn ec ! fvinq ts s t s d ns tn _that workers recei ve fa tr treatment.
12
SN, J
rendered indispensable services over decades.
i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.20t8 are quashed ;
ii. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their GArlrraac tcata a t rl ed fzr rf lr rrr i f lr However, the aDoellants shall not be entitled to anv Decunaary benefits/ n ck waoes for t e oeriod thev have not worked for but would ed ntin t rvt for the said oeriod and the same
{ {
l3
SN, J
oul nt th lr _ postretiral ben efi
'15. t m nif t a A lla rt Workm en nti o n ed th s er sev ral vears, sometimessDan ninq ore th:r r a decade. en ter oll er n f( ) luced in full. EE er' lur fu nish srl, h reco rdsd soite directi ons to dos o-allo s n dverse ere ce nd w t!ta ishr: I labour rurrsorude nce. Indianl bourla stronJ lv disfavo rs D rDetual ailv-wa eor con tractual en rqe m ents in circ UM sta nces where the work ls D :( rman nt tn n tu ra nd w er w of rfit on tn m nt al re e arI after vear can not be dasmi d sum ma rilv as lis Den sa b le, rti t a n of Llr rl ontractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be 3 rpropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite .,temporary,. employment practices as done by a recent udgement oF this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in :he following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporar./ employment contracts, as exemplified in this car;,, reflects a
l4
SN. J
broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In theprivate 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 andjustice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employmentpractices. Whenpublic 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 erodepublic trust in governmental operations.
o Misuse of "Temoora rv" Labels: Emolovees recurrr no. enqaqed for work that is essential and inteqral to the functioninq of a i nstitution are often labelled as "tem ora rv or "contractua ," even when their roles mlrror those of reoular emolovees. Such mlsc assifi c ttn n denrtves work rs of the dioniW, securitv, and benefits that reoular emolovees re entitled to. desoite oerforminq identical tasks.
. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without causeor notice, as seen in thepresent case. Thispractice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjectsworkers to a
I
l5
ii. J
state of constant insecurity, regardlej; of the quality or duration of their service. . [., ck of Career Progression: Temporary employer: ; often find themselves excluded from opportL r ities ior skill development, promotions, or incremcrr tal pay raises. They remain stagnant in their ro r s, l6ating a systemic disparity between them arrr their regular counterparts, despite their contri ,utions being equally significant.
. Using Outsourcing as a Shielc: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively rell acing one set oF exptoited workers with another. ril s p.iciil" not only perpetuates exploitation but als,t Oemonslrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obl r ation to offer regular employment.
o Denial of Basic Rights and Benef t ;: Temporary employees are often denied fundant :ntal binefits such as pension, provident fund, hea th insurance, 9ndpaid leave, even when their :enure spans decades. This lack of social security rubjects them and their families to undue hardship, eipeciatty in cases of illness, retirement, oT unforeseen circu m sta nces. "
b
16
SN, J
L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour lawprinciples. Once itis established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enoaoed in essential,perennial duties , these workers cannot be releoated to oeroetual .uncertaintv. While conc erns of municipal budoet and comD liance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the EmDIover ot statutorv oblioations r n a ee uit ments. Indeed b ureaucratic limitations cannot t rU m D thc leTI itimate riqhts of workmen who have served co ntinuouslv in de facto r ular roles for an extend ed oeriod.
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, L947, 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 allpurposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
I
17
SN, J
II. The Respondent Em ployer sha I reinstate the ( Appell ant Workmen in thei r resp€ tive posts (or L posts akin to the duties they previc sly performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Thei en tr er a lr! m the date of r tn 10 un a r s te t rent) shall be o te f r on ut 'l f sel ,ice and all cons equen tial benefits, su ch as ;enroritv a d eli biti t r o tto an
III. Considering the length of servicr: the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of t re back wa ges from the date of their discontinua t cn u ntil their actual reinstatement. The Respondent :m ployer shall clea r the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstate m ent.
V. Th R s nd t o r sd trected to tea alr a a n Droce for monre stla hsfeflri ln theth eAa aellth no we kmr,nshav !.'] ee witenerfortnmedd txlv er nni unr d a n l(t ermane nt oosts. In asse sln reou lar ti a ron the Emol ver s all no lmDO e edl cational or Drocedura I cn rta ret ctivel', if su ch tr e ts w ev r r.j ed t e lan or or ilit 1v si uated r ul r o s e a T C the exte nt a n e va n s r u tr d tie exist or ar re utr d.the esDon ent Er! ployer shall exoedite lln ece sa rv ad man istr ti!e processes en re th e n m res are not tndefin itelvr arn ed ondailv waqes contrarv to statu orv and eo ata le or s. 19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) Fited by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s ) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,,
l8
SN, J
i l
1 2 3 of the said ud men obs ved
"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while 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 full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell 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 equatity of opportunity to all other eligibte candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.
(2) But if dailv waqe ad hoc or contractual aooointees are not aDDointed asainst reqular sanctioned oosts and eir services are availed continuouslv, with notional breaks, bv the State Government or its instru entalities for a sufficient lonq oeriod i.e. for 70 vea rs. such dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractual aopointees shall be entitled to minimum of the recrularpiry seale wrtbe.tt allowances on the assumDtion that work of oerennial nature is available and havino worked for such lonq oeriod of time, an eouitable risht is created in such catesorv of oersons. Their claim for reqularization. if anv, mav have to be considered seoaratelv in terms of leoallv 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
ii I
l9
SN, J
wager, ad hoc or contractual employee :;t all be enti ed to arrears for a period of three years and ttv t months.) 13. Th u m nt f e Co rt t:d in2 o10( 9) c 24 tween a ofK n tak d th rs L e fl d oth rs tn a icu I r ara 4.to9 adsas
u n der:
on 4. The de10 20CISIO6 ntn Sfate din2of Karnata6 kav CC1Uma d ._ /J nth_wAs_fer t ierctlse Constitution Bench of this Court hetd that apl )' tintments made without following the due process or thel 't les relating to appointment did not confer any right on the zppointees and courts cannot dtrect their absorption, reguta'ization or reengagement nor make their service perma ner t., and the High Cou rt in exercise of jurisdiction under Arttc'e 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directior ,: for absorption, had regularization,been done In a or permanent continuance regular manner, unles:ln : . lhe terms recruitmentof the constitutional scheme; and that the cou tts mL t: t be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wl,1 the economic arrangement of its affa irs by the State or its j, 1;trumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita t t the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. Tt 1 s Court fu rther held that a temporary, contractual, casual ctt a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be n 't tde permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the ret e /ant rules or in adherence of Artictes 14 and 16 of the ConstitL I on. This Court however made one exception to the above p c rition and the same is extracted below
3 On 'h re av be s e I u n ot I al tn en Naravanapoa tJ B [79 1) l 4) s 507t ! ulv aualified ! ; mioht have ,ontinued to without the i of trihunals. € rvlces of
20
SN, J
a
ave to be co merits in the lidht of the DrinciDles settled bv this Court in the cases above ferred to and in the lidht of this iudoment. In th t context, the Union of o rnments an stru menta I ities shou ld k me measu the servI r, aDDointed, who have wo ed for ten vears or more ts t not un r orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that ular recruitments are those vacant san that reouire to be fil. uD, in cases where temoorarv emoloyecs or dailv waqers are beins now emoloved. The oroc ss musf be set in motion within six months from this date. .,..
"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 tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(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.
It, Uma v Government or instrumentalitv, to take steDs to reoularize the se s of those irreoularlv aooointed emplovees who had serued for more than ten vears without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevi. directed that such one-time measute must be set in
r
2t
SN, J
\ of its decision
a o b d I n t1 Dara 53 of s e t those who o n I tous service '- of courts or I t_ madevi was a r n tn v,!ewof
22
SN, J
heir lon servrce. rtments instru mentalit, s ,1^ n^j iha ^ar.rr6?'rrj6 Dractice of emolovino Dersons on ailv-waoe / adhoc/casual for lonq Deriods and then oeriodicallv reqularize them on theqrou d that thev have served for more than ten vears, thereby defeatino the constitutional or statutorv orovisions relatina to recruitment and aooointment. The true e of the diiection is that all rked for more tha 70.4.2006(the date of decision in Umadevi) without the Drotection of anv interim order of anv court or tribunal, in vacantposts, possessina the requisite aualification. are entitled to be considered for reoularization. Thefact that the emDlover has not undeftaken such exercise of reoularization within six onths of the decision in Umadevi or that such e.xercise was undertaken onlv in reqard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emolovees. the rioht to be nsidered for reaularization f above directions measure.
) )
23
SN, J
regularization in suitabte tt )wer posts' This appr al is disposed of accordingty.
24
SN, J
n s choace on the basis r n m n
f . Referrin to Umadevi it held before them were not arbitrarilvc hosen, their initial aooointment was not an 'irr oular' aooointment as it had been made in accordance ith the statutorv orocedure res ribed under P li A 1861 and t cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled tobe absorbed into the services of the State on oermanent basis as, accordino to it, their aDDointments wereou relv temDorarv an not aoainst anv sanctioned oosts created bv the State. It was held that the iudoment in Umadevi n become a licen e n the State an its instrume ntalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor thosepublic secto r Banks can continue such a r ice inconsistent lr ti ation to fun accordance with the Constitution.
f h A ex Court r 1 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Sri nivasulu and others v Nellore Municioal Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District. Andhra Prad esh and others tn Darticu lar oaras 7 and 8 reads as under:
25
SN. J
(7) 1Lalppted by_lhe flo ws fro m th ,o, No.21) ted a 2 .4.1 s =)k reaularization n ntnteG s of thefirst t o t: I - onlv Lne prior alpelletlto the s 1. to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Mun icipality :ing a statutory body is obtiqed by the G.O. 212(supra). In t le of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents k ' zlmost 2O years without regularisi ng the seryice of t s and continued to extract work from the appellants
<br>
26
SN, J
t7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in
(2OL4) 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken bv the Suoreme Court and it was hel das fo lows
7 fn vrew of the cated oricalfin no of facl on the relevant contentious issue that the resoondent emoloyees ve ntinued in their continuouslv therefore, the legal orinciole laid down bv t evt se State of Karna aka v Um vt 4 L 73 at ara 53 uarel aoolies to the oresent case The Division Bench of the , h rt has ri htl titled for the relie the same cann tbe interfered with b this Court."
/
27
SN, J
"100. The H igh Cou rts exercisin g their j LI isdiction u nder Article 226 o fthe constitution of India, n ()1 only have the power to iss ue a writ of mandamus or ir the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-boun dto € rct e uch p er-wh ere heGover nme nt ora plJ rlic authoritv has fai led toe xerct se or has wron( rlv exercised discr tro co ferred oo t va statut( , or a rule, or apoli cv decis ton oft heGovernment or ras exercised s ch di cr tio al f or0 I lr evant consideratio n.
_1O1.,Inall such cases, the High Courtmusi. issue a writ of mandamus and give directionis to .orp"i p e?ormance in an appropriate and lawful manner'of he discretion conferred upon the Government or a public I Jthority.,,
"Further, it is manifest from the material on r )cord that the :^iyl."tot the simitarly placedpersons noupp- ,acnea the law Lourts were regularized. The appellant_Co.po?I - r=n also issued various office orders/circurars aateJ io.illibii',' tt.os.tgs2, 06.to.2001 and tatest Aeing +.iioo; f;;Ltarization of casual/contract employees, Itls also to be seen iiJt section zS_ T of the ID Act prohibits unfair.tabour p;;.il; b;"any emptoye. or workman. As can be seen from th; ;;t*i I :lnario of the :?r:.ron hand, engagingthe respondents foisL:n a tong ana continuous period of time on casual basis is notling but unfair labour pracrice attractino tne proviiions- ;i-il;: n ,r_, or ,n" ID Act. The learned Sing-le Judge wtrite re-tyil!"o)'tne decisions of the Apex court, rightiy nera lrrat itre .*li,;"d".:i are entired to regularization as directed il lhe irpr-s""i-. -'ders, as the 9l.l:0.singteJudge considered "[th" "-r;;t. oi tiu rn"rr.. in detail, in the proper perspective, wnicn, iri oui i: rsioered view does not warrant interference in these uppuui.-..,-""
28
SN, J
"16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 ofthe Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the timethe judgment in lJma 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 thepractice of regularization and absorption off 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 a bsorption/reg u la rization of those, who wereworking fora 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 ispresumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders suchas G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, whilegiving directionsin Para No.53 of thejudgment 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 la rization/a bsorption exist. 2 f 1994 1 .2 2 date ) 2.4.L994 .l rr^+ r^rhi}}la d^rern i h width a6.1 iha iudoment in Maniura Eashini's case(supra), doesnot lower the t tectotvo t the directions issued b the Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudgment in UmaDevi's se ra .It rmt sible f ke shel er f 1994 nd Ms. No.212, d ated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to ilra 6af f nerc rrrha hrrra ad:niffad satisfi6d ilia criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment inUma Devi's case(suora).
I
29
SN. J
n ot u n w N of to t:l :hreerrIU satiom entlvrnqtn 's s s r tbecom eted n h fr a re this ord er. " I ,t of a coov of
"45. There is no disoute that petitioners have t een working on daily wage since t990 and have prt in Jro= i-J:O; y"urc of service by now. Thev have been gluun rnin;;ri ,i,|,u-..ulu r.o, the year 2000. Thev have beeri continuousfy , )orkrng without any Court orders in ti-reir favour from 1990 till d I e.
8 n o w e s o T d nt has not e o mne n M sar s cas!n (su Dr ) acna i undertaken (suo ra ). asa DOe1e sse4h sstroee eaouisitet srr eoud tifis.r ofettonsht o r evs dnoa eI!5! ification ts. f :n t ibdailunalposts (1O) yearsand v if aswaas andso,onqeto 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is alloweC; the impugned orders dated_ 20.B.20t9 passed by the 1st respor dent rejecting the cases of petitioners for reguia rization of sr-. time basis are declared as illegal,arbitrary ar d vtces violative on one_of Articles t4, t6 and 21 of thE Constitution rf India; the en rt ! e-time basis rv f t e DE iti ners e r o c n a ( es from the einitial datesofth err DOO n ent. Bu th ev shall not be nitledto anv moneta relief. The st aid x€:t cise rf receiot shalt beof coov of the order.,,
\
30
SN, J
23, This Court ooines that in the oresent case, the resoondents failed to disch rqe their dutv in examininq the reouest of the Detiti oner for requtarization of etitione h workin as full sw and further to consider his uest to treat the temoorarv service of the oetitioner in the last orade oost of full time sweeDer as reoular one for all ourooses bv orantino last qrade oav with oeriodical increment revise d from time to time from the date of aoooi ntment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law.
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstancesof thecase.
(
3l
S\ I
b) The submissions made by the le: rned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and ler rned standing counsel appearing on behaif of the respondr: tt Nos.4 & 5
c) The observations of the Apex Court i r the various judgments (referred to and extracted abor e) and again enlisted betow:
i)(2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii)- 19eo(2) scc pag; 396 (iai) 2O2s rNsc 144 (ir) 2024 Lawsuit(sc) 12O9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC t7g7 (ix) (2015) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 22s (rl) SLp No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme iourt 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 sCC 1 (xiv)_2O11 (1) ALD, page 234 (-xv) 2O18(2)aLo page i82 (xvi) 202o(a)ALD pJge 379
d) The Division Bench order of this ( ourt dated 10.o6.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7g2 of 2O10 and gS4 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.p.No.2437l ot 2OO7 and C.C.No 48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),
32
SN, J
e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated t9.O9.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above),
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 zOLg (referred to and extracted above).
g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order.
The Writ Petition is allowed the Detitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the oetitioner for
reo u la rization of oetitioner's services. and also the claim f etitioner e m ora servrc f +1r a er in the la ee er sre r il ur T] os s rade a with rncrements revised from ti e to time from the date of ent of h and all cons n nefits dul n ll the n m n of ron r' t-forth in h resen writ oetitlon- within a oeriod of one(O1) week from the date of receiot of coDv of the order and the resDondents
t
J'
SN, J
h a IN a d o I e a e ccorda nce to a nf r wt h fln es t at .! al iustice bv id ano rtu e n he, rrt nq to the e ti er t r s t rd rs a _:he Suoreme c n m D vi's re o oo 4 scc Paoe 1, h ent a e P o 4 77 ot' 2007 dated o o 2 Ore or ed in 20 1 1 AL a 34 an a c fa rmed ln W.A .No .742 of2o 10 dated 10, ! 6 .20 13, and also as er Divtsion Be nch Jud mentof this; Courtd at d 19.O 9.20t7 oass din W.P No.272 L7 ol 20Olr o din o 8 A D 2 2a dal o h Dir t sion Bench Judq ment of this Cou rt dated 21.O4-202t) oassed in I.A. Nos .1 ot 20 20 in1 of 20 19 in W.P.N o.2 t57 of 2OL9 020 A D e37 hi h hrd a ain ed a w thi a fl ur o e sf rm the date of ofa c of th f d :akin into o r e b rV ta e w g id down bv h x o ev r u e ts refr: 'red toa nd extr cted bove). and tn a tcu lar, Dara N( .53 t e t. e c f Stafe of a a v, n U o IJ nicate the
)+
Sr.!, J
r.H we r h
to h
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending in thisWrit
Petition, shall stand closed.
I
Sd/.S.MALLIKARJUNARAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
One Fair Copy to theHon'bleMRSJUSTTCESUREPALLI NANDA (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal)
To
J. The Secretary, TelanganaAdvocatesAssociation Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.
11 ohe-cd ro sht PF{ADEEPREDDYKATTA, sc FoR MPPZPP [oPUC] Two CD Copies
PSK. PMK
CC TODAY
HIGH COURT
DATED:1410712025
ORDER
WP.No.31161 of 2022
1 rli )rA(t
o
iO F_t ?t?5 r;)
2
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
r
ev
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, working as a temporary sweeper on compassionate grounds for over 17 years, is entitled to regularization and parity in pay and benefits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Avtar ChandReferred¶19
Union of India Vs Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32)
Prem Singh v. State of U.P.Referred¶19
Prem Singh Vs State of UP and Batch cases reported in 2019 10 SCC 516 · Who else cites this
Netram Sahu v. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶19
Netram Sahu Vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018
Kadar Basha v. State of TelanganaReferred¶19
Kadar Basha in WP No. 26788 of 2017
State of Karnataka v. R. UmadeviReferred¶68
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees' Association v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶73
Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1990(2) SCC Page 396 · Who else cites this
Anita v. Union of IndiaReferred¶102
Anita and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2025 INSC 144 · Who else cites this
Jaggo v. Union of IndiaReferred¶103
Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab v. Jagjit SinghReferred¶133
State of Punjab and others v. Jaquit Singh and others (2017) 1 SCC 148 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. R. UmadeviReferred¶142
State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (2010(9) SCC 247) · Who else cites this
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶188
Har Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Others AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 · Who else cites this
B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal CorporationReferred¶175
B. Srinivasulu and Others v. Nellore Municipal Corporation 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 · Who else cites this
State of Jharkhand v. Kamal PrasadReferred¶185
State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad (2014) 7 SCC 223 · Who else cites this
SLP No.32847 of 2024Referred¶187
3 provisions across 2 enactments
T. Devakamma
State of Telangana
District Collector (Panchayat), Nalgonda District
Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda District
Mandal Development Officer, Nalgonda Mandal
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
