A. Prabhavathi Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31981 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

A. Prabhavathi, W/o A. Mallesh, Working as full time Sweepeer,^{Aged about} 41 years, Working as full time Sweeper in tvlPPS- Nehrunagar, Quthbullapur lr,4andal, lt4edchal- tt4alkaigiri District, TS

¶9

...'ET,T'ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Panchayathra1 and} Rural Employment Department, Telangana Secretariat,^Hyderabad. -

¶12

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

¶13

The Commrssioner of Panchayathral And Rural Employment,^{Govt. of} Telangana, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad

¶14

fhe Zilla Praja Parishad, rep. by its Chref Executive Officer,^Medchal Malkajgiri Dislrict. TS

¶15

The lviandal Development Officer, Quthbullapur^{lvlandal,MedchalMalkajgiri} District' TS

¶16

...RESP.NDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of |h,e Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an order or directton more^parttcularly one in the nature^{of Writ of} l,4andamus to declare the rn action of the respondents in^{not regularizing the} temporary appointment^provided to the^petitroner on^{compassionategrounds in the} yeat 2OOg as per G.O.N/s. No. 687 dated 03i 10/1977 to till date by^{paying starvlng} wages of Rs. 16231 per month from 12 long^{years ignoringlegitimatewages} payable to the petitioner as per Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages^{Act, 1948} and Section 4 of Equal Remuneration^{Act, 1976Rl/WArticle 14, 16,21} '^{39 (d),43} and 300 (A) of our Constitution, as highly^{illegal, unJUSt, unfair and violation of the} provisions of the said Acts and our Constitution and^prays to^directthe respondents herein to treat the^petitioner as a^{regular one in the last gradepost} from the date of appointment by applying the^{principle laid by the Hon'ble}

¶18

Supreme Court ir C.A. No. 6798 of 2019 dated O2l0gl2o1^{) in the case of Prem} Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2019 (1)SCC - 516) and with fu'^{I er direction to release} all the consequential monetary benefits of the last^gradi cost^{fromthe date of} appointment i.e. lrom June 2009 to till date from time t-^{ime with100 percenl} compensation on arrears of pay as per the^principle laid t1 the^{rlon ble Supreme} Court rn CA No.^.}416 - 3445 of 2010 daled^191021201 9^{r the case of Unionof} lndia Vs. Avatar Chand⁽²⁰¹⁹ 3 ALD SC 32) by awarding^h: rvy ccst.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the : r(lumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court^: r lr be^pleased to direct the respondents herein to treat the temporary contingi rt appointment of^the petitioner provided on compassionate grounds by 5th res1r, ndent as^per GO^lr4 s No. 687 dated 03/10/1977 as regular one in lhe last grade I >;l forthwith 5y^paying last grade time scale benefits to the petitioner.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR SERVI(l :S-ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI PRADEEP RI: )DY KATTA, SC FOR MPP ZPP

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

4

¶24

SN. J

¶25

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.3 194 10 F 2021

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II 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.

¶29

2. The oetitioner approached the Court seekinq^praver as under:

¶30

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the in action of the respondents in not regularizing the temporary appointment provided to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the year 2009 as per GO. Ms. No.687, dated 03/10/1977 to till date by paying starving wages of Rs.1623l per month from 12 long^years ignoring legitimate wages payable to the petitioner as per Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 R/W Article 14, 16,21, 39(d), 43 and 300(A) of our Constitution as highly illegal, unjust, unfair and violation of the provisions of the said Acts and our Constitution and

¶31

5

¶32

S, J

¶33

prays t3 direct the respondents herein r: treet the petitionCr aS a regUlar one in the last qrar,re post from the date.of appointment by applying the pi'^-r iplc !aid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 6⁽ B cl 2019 dated 0;2/09/2019 in the case of prem Sing:r ./s Srate of U. P. (2019 1 SCC 516) and with further ( irection to release all the consequential monetary be - t fits of the last grade post from the date of appointmerr i.e., from lune 2009 to till date from time to time^,vith 100% compensation on arrears of pay as per the I rinciple laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C.A. No. -j I 6-1445 of 2010 dared t9/02/2019 in the case oF Unioi. >f India Vs Avatar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) bV awrr , inq heavy cost and pa ss... "

¶34

3.L rned counsel aDpearrno on be I ralf f the Petitio er lacinq re li nce on the averments -nade in the affidavit filed in support of the oresen t v^I rif Pgtition perta in inq in Darticular, to the service s l endered by petitio er with the r spondents herein for r tore an a decade contends that the petitioner is enti led f r the relief a r yed for in ent wri etitiorl

¶35

PERU ED THE R ECORD:-

¶36

DISCUSSION AND CONCLU SION:-

¶37

6

¶38

Sh!, J

¶39

Learned counsel aopearinq on behalf of the ition its that h sub ect i in th en case is squarelv covered bv the order of this Court, dated 08.09.2010^passed in W.P.No.243 77 of 20 o7 reoorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2OlO, dated 1O.O5.2O13 and also order. da ted 19.o9.2017 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2017 reoorted in 2O18⁽²⁾ ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.2O2O Dassed in W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reported in 2O2O(41 ALD Paqe 379.

¶40

Learned sta ndinoco unsel a DOearrno onbehalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the ition r -fo hin h res nt Wri Petiti nha been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and fherefdrF, f he nFtitin n r .A nn.)t an m ri A n in.a.ti6 n at n the Dart of resoondents herein in co nsideri no the orievance of e relief as ra ed r h oetitioner in the^present Wit oetit ton cannot be oranted and no Mandamus can be issued aqainst the respondents hereunder as souqht for and the^petitioner may be directed to^put-forth the oetitioner's^qrievance as^put- forth in the oresent wrat Petition bvw a of a detailed

a-\

7

s.l

representation to the resoonden ts herein and upon receipt of the said representation, the resoo l Cen ts would consider the same ln accordance to la I within a rea sonable oeriod.

¶45

Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of Ilr itioner does not dispute the said submission made b1 the learned standin o counsela DNeann oontr ehalf of th' f s ondent No.4

¶46

The Aoex Court in the iudqment reporte(! in (2O2O )1 scc L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar l'radesh and others. at oara 36 held as under:

¶47

"36. There are some of the employees who hai,: not Deen regularized in spite of having rendered the servil :s for 3040 or more years whereas they have been supr_. - nnuated. As they have worked in the work-charged est. I lishrnent, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government il ;fructions and even as per the decision of this Court rr State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court^.l the said decision has laid down that in case services I rve been rendered for more than ten years without the co er of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the sr: vices be regularizr:d of such employees. In the facts of he case, those employees who have worked for ten yea': or more should have been regularized. It would not be )roper to regulate them for consideration of regularization rs oth ers have been regularized, we direct that their s r vlces be treated as a regular one. However, it is made, lea r that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of ifference in wages had they been continued in servicc regularly

¶48

8

¶49

SN. J

¶50

before attaining the age of superannuation.^They shall^be entitled to receive the^{pensionas if theyhave retired} servrces from the reqular establi hment and^the rendered bv them riq ht from the dav^theventered the work-char oed establishment shall b^{e countedas} oualifvinq service for DurDose o^{f oension."}

¶51

The Dex Court in the se of Dharwad Di rict PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association^{Vs.State of} Ka rnata k reno rted in 1990 ( ) scc Paoe 396 laid nn nctD e that the State should not k eo a oerson rn tem Dorarv or adhoc se vice for lonq oeriod and have to treat^such Dersons as reou lar one.

¶52

Para No.53 of the of th iudoment of the oex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs.^{Umadevi. dated} 1O.O4.2OO6 re Dorted in⁽²⁰⁰⁶ ) 4SCC 1is extracted h ereu nder::

¶53

"53. One asDect needs to be clarified^{. There mav be} cases whe irreoular aDDointments (not illeqal ointm x lained in V.N ra ana L967 1 R1 R.N. Nan a a 197 1 scc 409^'l and B.N Naqa raian f1979⁽⁴⁾ Scc⁵⁰⁷¹ and refe red to in oara 1 5 above, of^{dulvoualified} Dersons in dulv sanction vacant Dosts mioht have been made and the emo lovees have^{coninued to} work for ten vears or more but^witoutthe i nte rven ion of orders of the courts or of ribunals. The ouest onof reo u la riza on of the servl ces of such emolovees mav have to be considered on^{merits in} the lioht of the Drtncl oles ettled bv this Court in the

¶54

9

¶55

s.^l

¶56

ca ses abovereferred to and in the I rqht of this iudqm ent. In that context, the Union nf India the State Governments and their in st! umentalities should take steDs to req u la rize as a one-time

¶57

measure ,thes ervices of such irrequla rJ, appointed, who have worked for ten vears or n rore in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of _.rrders of the cou rtsoroft ribu na ls and should fu rthe n ure tha

¶58

reo ular rec ruitments are undertaken o fill those vacant sa nctioned oosts that reou ire tc1be^filled uo. rn cases where tem oora rv emolov s or _^lailv waoers are beinq now emoloved The oro ess n !^{lrst be} set in mot ion within six month s from thi s date

¶59

The udqment of the Aoex Court datec 2 .t2.2024 reported in 2()24 LawSuit(sc) 12O9 in Jag I 1 oAnita a nd others v. Union of India and others and the re leva nt paraqr Nos.12, 13 24,26, 27 and28; L e extracted hereunder:

¶60

"12. Despite being labelled as^,'part- time workers, " the appellants performed t rrese essential tasks on a daily and contirr.rous basis over extensive periods, ranging^,'rom over a decade to nearly two decades.^{- "heir} engagement was not sporadic or temp( rary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, rer; trlar, and akin to the responsibilities typi:aily associated with sanctioned posts. More(,ver, the respondents did not engage any c ther personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶61

The claim bv the resDond ts _ that ese w r otr ksm i,,^as the nature of the work performed bl' the

a.aa

t0

SN, J

aooellants was^perennaal and fundamental to h f nrn f ces. The recu rrin s 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 appellants'termination demonstrates the in he re nt 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 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. Couft of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice oF hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This^judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits, It r 's role in rectif uch mi !a ssifica nd ensurin tha workers receive fa ir treatment.

¶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 principles are

¶68

It

¶69

SN, ]

¶70

often misinterpreted or misapplied tr.r deny legitimate claims of long serving employe,.,s This judgment aimed to distinguish between 'i tega,' and "irregular" appoinl- rents. It cateqoricallv held that em olove e s in irreoular a DD ointments, who were enqa c ed in dulv san ctioned Dosts and had s ;,^,:rved continuou slv for more than ten vears ! il rould be con sid e red for reqularizationasa onet nt cf ime nteasure. However , the laudable inlt the^jud lment is being subverted when insti_ rtio n s rely or its dicta to ind rscrim inately rejr:c . the claims of employees, even in cases wher-,: their appointments are not illegal, but merelT lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gover r ment departnrents often cite the judgment in Unr. Devi (supra) to argue that no vested riql tto regularization exists for temporary emplc yees, overloo<ing the judgment's il :plicit acknowledgment of cases where regularizat on is appropriate. This selective application dis torts the iudqment's soirit and ourpose, effec! ivelv weaponizinq it aoainst emolovees who_ have re nd e red i nd isoe nsa ble servt ces over deca dg s.

¶71

In light of these considerations, I our opinion, it is imperative for goverr ment departrnents to lead by example in provid n; fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, esp( cially when tl-rerr roles are integral to the organiz.t.ion's functioning, not only contravenes internir ional labour standards but also exposes the organl, ation to legal challenges and undermines emplrryee morale. By ensuring fair emplol,r,nent practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litig rtion/ promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach ir igns wath international standards and s(!j s a

I

l2

SN. J

positave precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶76

In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following exte n t:

¶77

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

¶78

!t. The aooellants shall be taken back on d utv forthwith and their se rv r ces reoula ised fo rthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecunrary benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their Dostretiral benefits."

¶79

The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 31.01.2O25 re orted in 2025 INSC 144 in " IPAL AND A THER v. NA AR NI AM HAZIAB r EV nt para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶80

'15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously re[dered their services over several vears, sometimes soanninq more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the Emolover's failure furnish such recordsdespite directions lo !a so-allows an adverse

¶81

r3

¶82

SN. J

¶83

infer ence under we ll-establishr:, I labour urt f dence. Indian labo rla stront lv disfavors DE TDEtual dailv-waqe or co ntractual en(I ,roelnellts in ctrcumstances where th e work is o 6 rmanent in nature. Morallv an d leqally, worker,i w o fulfil onqorno municipal reouiremen ts vea : after vear cannot be dismis ed summarilv as I ensable particularlv in the absence of a qenuirl: contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be . ppropriate to recall l-he broader critique of indefinitr: "temporary" employment practices as done by a recenl udgement of this cor,rrt in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following paragraphs:

¶84

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporar', emcloyment cc,ntracts, as exemplified in this cas:, reflects a broader systemic issue that adr,:'sely aFfects w,rrkers' rights and job security. t ^ the private se:ctor, the rise of the gig economy I as led to an increase in precarious employment a rrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practic.r; have been criticized for exploiting workers anc undermining laoour standards. Government instituli( ns, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairnc; ; and justice, berar an even greater responsibility i I avoid such el ploitative employment practices. /r/hen public sector entities engage in misuse r f temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detr tlental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode pu llic trust in governmental operations.

¶85

25i. It is a disconcerting reality tf i t temporary employees, particularly in governmerr institutions, often face multifaceted forms of expl ) tation. While the foundational purpose of temporary ( ontracts may

¶86

t4

¶87

SN, J

¶88

have been to address short-term or seasonal^needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism^{Lo 2024} SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term^obligations owed to employees. These^practices manifestⁱⁿ several ways:

¶89

o Misuse of "Temoora rv" Labels: E olovees enqaqe for work that is essential, re^{cu rrt no,} and inteoral to the functioninq of a i nstitution are often labelled as "temDora tv" or "contra tual," even w en their roles^mtrror those of requla r emolovees. Such misclas ification deprives workers of the diqnitv, securitv, and benefits that reoular emolovees re entitled to, desoite oerfo rmⁱ nq entical tas

¶90

. 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^{incrementalpay raises.} They remain stagnant in their roles, creating^a systemic disparity between them and their^regular counterparts, despite their contributions^being equally significant.

¶91

. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing^{roles performedby} temporary employees, effectively^{replacingoneset} of exploited workers with another.^{This practicenot} only^perpetuates exploitation but^{also demonstrates} a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation^{to offer} regular employment.

¶92

. Denial of Basic Rights and BeneFits: Temporary employees are often denied^{fundamental benefits} such as pension,^{provident fund, health insurance,}

¶93

l5

¶94

SNJ

¶95

and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social securit;, subjects them and their families to undue hardsh t, especially in unforeseen cases of illness, retirement, )- c ircu mstances. "

¶96

l-he High Court did acknowledge t te Employer,s inability tc justify these abrupt terminations. ConsequenUy, it ordered re-engagement on daily wac ( s with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrett lbly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant \ /orkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still urr( ertain status. While l,he Hlgh Court recognized the impc r tance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatio r, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meanincf tl back waoes commensurate with the degree of stat I :ory violation evident on record.

¶97

In light of these considerations, tf 3 Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workrrr n stands in violatio:r of the most basic labour law princiI es, Once it is established that their services were termi rated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the L . P. Industria I Disputes Acl, 1947, and that thev werel enoa^qed in ess ntial, Derennial duties. these workti "s cannot be releqated t DETDE ual uncertaintv.wll ile concerns ofm unlcr al bu dqet and compli ance with recruitmen t rules merit co nsideration, s g ch concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorl oblioations or neo ate eouitablee ntitle ent T deed bur aucrati !imita ons ca not tru Dtl 1 ,gl itim ate

i I

16

SN, J

riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended oeriod.

¶102

The imouqned order of the Hiqh Court. to the extent thev confine the Ao Dellant Workmen to future dailv-waoe enqaqement without continuitv or meaninoful back waoes, is herebv set aside with the folLowinq directions:

¶103

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. AII orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶104

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously per-formed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeri od of absence^(from the date of r ination until actu lr tn m e counted for continui of servtce and all conseouential benefits, such as senioritv and eliqibility for Dromotions, if anv.

¶105

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

¶106

IV. The aespondent EmDlover is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for rlzln th t Workmen hin si

¶107

t7

¶108

SN, J

¶109

months from th date of reinstal:r:rment, dulv considerino the fact that thev havr: performed r n I munici al duties kin p!)sts. In assessinq requlari g,rtion,^IDermanent the Emolover shall not impose edu r:ational or orocedural crit ria retroactivel I if such reouirements were never aooli ,:d to the Aooellant Work en or to similerr'lv situated reoular emolovees in the oast. Trr the extent that sanct o n ed vacancies for such ,dutles exist or are reouired. the Respondent Er1 plover shall exoed ite all necessarv administrati ! e Drocesses re these lon time m 'I tt a e not indefinitelv retai ned on dailv waoe s contrarv to statutorv and e^quitable norms.

¶110

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

¶111

L2. The Aoex Court in iudqment reoorted in^(2OL7'l L SuDreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniall and others vs Ja OIit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and it s sub-paras (1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed as u! der:

¶112

"5.1 "Ihe Full Bench of the High Court, wt i ? adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, .1 at temporary employec:s were not entitled to the minimum of tt ? regular payscale, merely for the reason, that the activitie:i carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary emp'( yees, who felt in either of the two exceptions, were held entitte d to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular : nployees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the Hiq t Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶113

"():..) A daily wager, ad hoc or contracl ral appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if i )pointed after

¶114

l8

¶115

SN, J

¶116

undergoing a selection^process based upon^fairnessand equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular^pay scale^from the date of engagement.

¶117

2 But if d I d hoc or nt aooointees are not aooointed aoa nst reaular n tsa are av, continuouslv, with notional breaks, v the State rnment or i liti, sforasu lono^period i.e. for 70 vears, such dailv waoers. ad hoc or contr,actual aooointees shall be entitled^to um of the cale witho on the that work Derennia I nature is availa^{le and havino workedfor} such lono oeriod of time, an eoui ble rioht^is created in such ca teaorv of oercons. e,r claim for reoularizatio if anv. mav have to considered sef,eratel tn te^{rrns of leoallvoe} rmtss^ihlescheme.

¶118

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum^pay scale after more than three years and two months^of completion of 10 years of continuous^working, a^daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled^to arrears for a period of three^years and two months."

¶119

The iudqment of the Aoex Court reoort d in^2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others^v M.L.Kesari and others . in oarticular, Daras 4 to 9 reads^as

¶120

u nde r:

¶121

The decision in State ofKa^{rnatakav. Umadevi was rendered} on 10.4.2006^(reoorted in 2006 4)^{SCC 1). Inthat case,a} Constituti on Bench of this Court held^{that appointmentsmade} without following the due^process or the rules^relatingto appointment did not confer any right on the^{appointeesand} courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or^re- engagement nor make their service^{permanent, and the High} Court in exercise of^jurisdiction under Afticle 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^ofthe

¶122

t9

¶123

SN, J

¶124

constituL'ional scheme; and that the courts mus . be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wttt the economic arrangetnent of its affairs by the State or its t : trumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita,( the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. Tltt ; Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual ct a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be nr, de permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the rel? lant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitLt on. This Court however made one exception to the above pc ;ition and the same is extracted below :

¶125

"53. One asDect needs to be clarified. l'here may be cases where irreaular appointments (not illeqal ointm n ex la in di Na ravana DDA 7967 728 R.nt , nda n [7972⁽⁷⁾ SCC 40gl and B.N. Naoarajan [7979 _ 41 SCC SOT| and referred to in Dara 75 above, of ,,lulv oualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant Do:; s mioht have been made and the emolovees have_ continued to work for ten vears or more but _ without the intervention of orders of the courts c'! of tribunals. The ouestion of reqularizatio of ttt, .t ces of such em Dlovees mzv have to be i )nsidered merits in the lioht of the Drinciples :t:tttled bv this Court in he cases abovere ferred to a 7 d in the lioht of this iudoment. In that context. ..he lJnion of India, the State Governments and their instru mentalities should take steDs t(t reqularize as a one-time measure. the services of st1::h irreoularlv aopointed. who have worked for ten tears or more in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not u,l der cover of orders o the courts or of tribunals and ould further ensure that reqular recr L^{itments are} undertaken to fill those vacant sanl^{tioned oosts} that require to be filled uo, in '.:ases where temDorarv emol.o ees or dail waqt,'s are beins now emoloved- The orocess m ust be ) t:et in motion within s months from this date. ....

¶126

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

¶127

(i) The employee concerned should have worked or 70 years or more in '7uly sanctioned post without the benefit ( r protection of

¶128

20

¶129

SN, J

¶130

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.

¶131

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be i egat, 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.

¶132

tt, Uma adu e con Governm nt or instrumenta litv, to take steps to reoulariz the services of those irreoularlv a DDointed o ees who rved for m ten without the b efit or Drotection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must e set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OOG).

¶133

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 instrumentatity 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 courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

¶134

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 instru mentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding . several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para

¶135

2l

¶136

SN, J

¶137

53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose tlrr ir right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering t eir cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para t3 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should cort: ider all dailywage/ad hoc/those employees who had put i,1 1O years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withor-tt availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or l.'t tu nals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in ternr: of para 53 of Umadevi,. but did not consider the cases of some r mployees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevt the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a ontinuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise vt'l be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled io be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considere,l

¶138

The obiect behiod the said direction it oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure th i t those who have tn r, o tin uous service without the^protection of anv interim order of courts or tribunals before the date of decision tn ! tmadevi was rendere are n I t(\ ,nv ew of their loLlq service, Second is to ens. L^'e that the departments/ iostfumentalities do not pet'petuate the practice of emplovins Dersons on dat'lv-waqe/adhoc casu I ert^periodicallv reqularize them on the^qround that thev ha,e served for more than ten vears, thereby defeatinq the !onstitutional or statutorv^provisions relatinq to recr.,itment and a intment. The tru f d, tir^t is that all oersons who have worked tor more than ter ' years as on 7O.4.2OOG (the date of decision in Umadevl without the orotection of any interim order of any court !'r tribunal. in SSeSSrn the , ttification. are entitled to be conside fhe fact that eem lo r undertaken such exercise of reoularization within six months of thet decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undetlaken onlv in reoard to a limited few. will not dise ntitle such emplovees, the rioht to be considered for leoularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi lts a one-time measure.

¶139

These appeals have been pending for more i, an four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Ztla panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of l spondents of

¶140

22

¶141

SN, I

¶142

regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

¶143

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six monthsl 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 cases, 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 su itable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶144

In the iudqment of the Apex Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Punia b reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose 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

¶145

SN. J

¶146

control vested with the State. It held that the |reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre s a matter exclusively within the authority of the State , but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ctr rse to make appointments of persons creating contractua! relationship, its action is arbitrary. It alstl refused to accept the defence that there were no san<! ioned oosts and so there wast ustification for the Sta t r: to utilise services of larqe number of oeople like the aI pellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts do r ot fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious ch oice on the basis of some rationa I assessment of need. Referrino to madevi, it held that th ) appellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, rlheir initial aDrrointment was not an 'irreqular' appointm ( nt as it had been made in accordance with the statutor- | Droce d ure under the Poli A 1861 an( the State cannot be heard to sav that thev are not e g titled to be a bsorbed into the services of t e State orr permanent basis as, accordino to it, their a DDointments _,vere ourelv temporarv and not aoainst anv sanctioned rl lsts created

L

24

SN, J

bv the State. It was hel that the iudqment in Umadevi can not become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and instrumentali n the G vern those ublic rB n s n continu h ctice inconsisten wt h li ation to fun n ccordance with h n

¶151

The iudoment of the Aoex Court re rted in 2015 sCC Online s L797 between B.Srinivasu! and others V Nellore Mu nicioal Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore Distri , Andhra Pradesh and othe rs, in^particular

¶152

oarasTandSr eads as under:

¶153

(7) We find it difficult to acce L e reasontn o ado Dted bvthe Hioh Court. The riqht of the apoellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 The appellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶154

B. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is 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 Coutt in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M. L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480,

¶155

25

¶156

SN, J

¶157

In Amarkant R tv fB or i ,:d⁽²⁰¹⁵ )8 cac 265 the Su rtr m a aarr r rf held that 'Tl e objective behind the exception carved out in this case vr:rs to permit regularization of such appointment, which I re irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmentrr which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure security of emDlovment of those Dersons who had servr d the State Government and their instrumentalities for rr t)re than ten Vears". In that case, em^plovee was workinq t lr 29 vears. This dec s on a nnroves earlier vi ew et( l)ressed in M.L.Kesari ex racted above.

¶158

In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in (20L4) 7 SCC 223. similar view was tal en bv the Suoreme Court an d it was held as follows :

¶159

"47..,. In view of the cateoorical findino t1 fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondt tt emDlo vees ve in the, '! an 70 vears continuouslv therefo re, the leoal orinciole rtid down bv this Court in Umadevi case^(State of Karnat. t,ra v Umadevi (20061 4 SCC 7 2.)0 SCC^(L&SI 73, at Dat'i 53 squarelv apolies to the oresenf cases. The Division _Bench of the Hioh Court has riohtlv held that thet resDondent emolovees are entitled for the relief. the sat te cannot be interfered with bv this Court,"

¶160

26

¶161

SN, J

¶162

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 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.937 of 2023 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2O24.

¶163

The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 and in^{particularpara} Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶164

"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-bound to exercise such ower where the Gover ent or a ublic authori has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicy decision of the Government or has exercised h R re I nm fide or n lr li van consideration.

¶165

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."

i-r

27

SN. J

The Division Bench of this Court in i t r; Judqment dated 10.O6.2O13^passed in W. A.Nos.782 of ll .l1O and 854 of 2OL2 while up holdinq the Judqment date,j 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.N! 48 of 2OO8 observed as under:-

¶170

"Futher, it is manifest from the material on r )cord that the services of the similarly placed persons who appr rached the law Courts ^/ere regularized. The appellant-Corporat cn a lso issued various office ord ers/circu la rs dated 20.12.19i|' ,^LI.09.1992, 06.10.2Cr07 and latest being 4.7.2009 for r: lularization^of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen I rat Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice L,' any employer or workrnan. As can be seen from the factua cena rio of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for :;r ch a long and continuous^period of time on casual basis is nct ring but u nfa ir labour practice attracting the provisions of Sec.r )n 25-T of the ID Act.^-fhe learned Slngle Judge while relying r I the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respond -. rts are en titled to regularization as directed in the impugned rrders, as the learned single -Judge considered all the aspects c ' the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our⁽ rnsidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

¶171

2L. The Division Bench of this Court in il s Judqment dated 19.O9.2017 oassed in W.P. No 27217 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD^paqe 282 at Dara 1(1 and^para 18 observed as under:-

¶172

"16. It is trite that the law declared by the SJ :reme Court is blnding throughout the country under Articl 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that L 1 the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms, \o.212, dated 22.4.t994, were in existence. The Suprerne Court, while denouncing the practice of regularizatlon and rbsorption of f persons, who entered service through back dc,r rs by giving a

¶173

28

¶174

SN, J

¶175

go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to one-time public posts, consciously ordered for a bso rption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given dlrections 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, daled 22.4.1994, 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 regu la rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the width and the iudgment in /ulaniula Eashrni s case (supra). does not l.rr rar tha traia.f.riv 6f fha diraetirrn< i<crrad hrr fha SuDreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's case^(suora). It is, therefore. not oermissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, to denv reqularization to fhF nctiti.tnerc rarhn hawe a.lrrriftcal <at sfia.l fhr crateria laid down in Para No,53 of the iudqment in Uma Devi's case^(supra).

¶176

For the aforementioned reasons. order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and^t h w^{iit netifi.iri} qa il.t Fd r rif h f he .lire.+ arri tar t h respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the oetitioners aoainst the existinq vacancies of Work InsDectors and aDDoint them subiect to their satisfvinq the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case^(suDra). This^process must be comDleted wathin two months from the date of receiot of a coov of this order."

¶177

The Divisiox Beneh of this court in its Judqment dated 21.04.2020^passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019

¶178

and w.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD^paqe

¶179

379 at paras 45,48 and oara 5O observed as under:-

¶180

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from

*.<

29

SN, J

the year 2000. They have been continuously v orking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till d;rl :.

¶185

It is not known whv the 1st resoorr rlent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's ca:;r, (suora ), as exDla ined in M.L. Kesari's case suDra) an( L undertaken a one-time exercise of oreoarin q the list e f dailv waqe emDlo ees who had orked for mo than ! i:n⁽ 10 vears without the intervention of the Courts and^-L ibunal as on 1O,4.2OO6 an d subiect them to a Drocess ve r ification as to whethe r thev are workinq aqainst vaca !.1 osts an DOSSeSS re^quisite oualifications for the oor ts. and if so, reqularize the rr servtces.

¶186

Acc,:rdingly, the writ petition is allowed. the rmpugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st resp: tdent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of s€^-vices on onetime basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary I rd violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to reqularize on 2 rre-time basis petitioners' services from th e date each of t re oetitioners co m D e 1O vears of service on dailv wlres fr m the initial ates of their aDoointmen t. But, th(t^{shall not be} entitled to anv monetarv retief. The said ex!^{rcise shallbe} done within two (2) weeks from the dato of receiDt of coDv of the order."

¶187

This Court ooines that in the prese t t case, the resDondents failed to discharqe their dutv I I examtn rno the reouest of the Detation er r requl trizati on of Detationer's services, who is workinq as full 1: me sweeper and further to consider his request to treat th,e temDorarv servrce of the Detitio ner ln the last o de oo:; of full tame swee er as reo ular one for all ourooses bv ! rrantinq last qrade oav with oeriodical increment revised .1 rom t me to

¶188

30

¶189

SN, J

¶190

time from the date of aooointment of th oetitioner, in

¶191

accordan ce to law,

¶192

This Court ooines that petitioner is en for con sideration of oetitioner's case for orant of the relief as nrav ed for in f h r^acanf rit Dafition in view f^fha observations of the Apex Court in various iudqments (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Jud qments referred to and extracted above.

¶193

25. Takinq into consid ration:-

¶194

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 standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5

¶195

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

¶196

i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (aai) 2025 rNsc 144 (av) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209

a'l

31

SNI

(v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2Ct1O(9) sCC 247 (vii) (2013) 14sCc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC t797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ol 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

¶201

d) The Division Bench order of this ( ourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1Cr and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment datecl 08.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.N,I ,48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶202

e) The Division Bench order of this ( ourt dated 19.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O17 (referred to and extracted above),

¶203

f) The Division Bench order of this ( ourt dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 rrf 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 (referred to and extra(: ed above).

¶204

g) In the light of discussion and conctusion i,s arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the presenl: ,)rder.

32

SN, J

I I

The Writ Petition is allowed, the Detitioner is directed to^put-forth the claim of the^petitioner for reqularization of oetitioner's servt ces a nd also the claim of the^petitioner to treat the temporar\Lservices of the t! etitioner in the last lt rade nost o e Swee nai a,c rarr r rlrr ana for all^purposes bv^qrantinq last^qradepay with^periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of apDointment of the^petitioner and all consequential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in support of^petitioner's case as^put-forth in the^present writ^petition, within a Deriod of one^(O1) week from the date of receipt of copv of the order and the respondents sh al I examine and consider the same in accordance to law. in conformitv with ori ciDles of natural iustice bv nrovid i n^d an ftnn ortrr NI fwo t nerc.lne lh aa rln a tfl fhe petitioner, in terms of orders Dassed bv the SuDreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 2OO6(4) SCC Paqe 1, the iudqment^passed in W.P.No.24377 oI 2OO7 dated 08.09.2010 reported in 2011⁽¹⁾ ALD, Paqe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10.06.2O13, and also as^per Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated

/_:lr

JJ

SN, J

19.O9.20L7 Dassed in W,P. No.27217 of 2OO.,^t reported in 20L8(2 )ALD Daqe 282 and also the Dirr'ision Bench Judqment of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2tl Dassed in I.A.Nos .1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.23llr57 of²⁰¹⁹ reDo in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 which h;rd a ined finalitv. within a oerio d of four (O4) weeks fi'rm the date of^.recei Dt of a coov of this order dulv takinq into con sideration the obs rvations and t elawi rid down bv the Ao x Court in the various iudo ments ( reli rrr to and extra cted above). and in oa rticu la r, Dara ll:.53 of the iudqment f the Apex Court in the case .rf State of Karnataka v Uma Devi and dul comnt.tnicate the decision to the Detitioner. Howeve r, there ,;hall eno order as to costs.

¶213

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending n this Writ Petition, sha ll stand closed.

¶214

SD/. AHNII::D ABDULLA KHAN SII TANT REGIST

¶215

//TRUE COPY//

¶216

SECTION OFFICER

¶217

One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble MRS JUSTIC\ UREI),\LLI NANDA (For Her Ladyships Kind perusal)

¶218