Allowed

Perala Ramesh and 14 others v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC16 Jul 2025WP/32030/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fifteen temporary full-time contingent sweepers sought regularisation as last grade posts with pay benefits after decades of service. The court allowed the writ petition directing them to submit representations within one week, and respondents to examine and decide their claims within four weeks in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to file representation within one week; respondents directed to examine, consider and decide regularisation claims within four weeks per cited precedents; no order as to costs.

Perala Ramesh and 14 others Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Perala Ramesh, S/o P. Veeraiah,^{Aged about 40 years, Workingin temporary} post of full time sweeper on compassionate^grounds PS^Modinpuram, Chivmela Mandal, Suryapet^{District, TS.}

¶9

Shaik Jahangir, S/o Shaik Jani^{Miya, Aged about 30 years, Working.in} !1,9 temporary^p-ost of full time sweeper on^{cgmpqsslonqlggrounds,PS} gatdhettybudem, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District, TS.

¶10

B. Avilai'ah, S/o i\arsai-ah, Aged^{about 55 yeirs, working in temporary post of} full time sweeper on compassionate^{grounds,PS Bandamedegudem,} Shaligouraram ft/landal, Nalgonda^{District, TS.}

¶11

T. Sframy, S/o Narsaiah, aged^{about 31 years, workingin temporary postof} full time sweeper on comfassionate^{grounds,PS Akaram, Shaligouraram} Mandal, Nalgonda District, TS.

¶12

Md. Abdul S-hukur, S/o tt4d. Abdul^{Jahangir, aged about58 years, workingin} temporary^post of full time sweeper^on _compassionate^grounds,PS Cherupaliy, Dindi Mandal, Nalgonda^{District, TS.}

¶13

Bhuky'a Thavurya, S/o^{Venkati, aged about 49 years, Wo-r[.11_tg^in_temporary} post bf full time sweeper ltn compqssionate^grounds, MPPS^Bibigudem, Chivmela Mandal, Suryapet^{District, TS.}

¶14

S. Narsamma, W/o Devaiah,^{Aged about 40 years,Occ Wotking in temporary} post of full time sweeper on compassionate^grounds P.S.^{Kondlarayangudem,} Chivvemula Mandal, Suryapet^{District, TS.}

¶15

B. tVl. Nagaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Aged^{about 53 years, OccW_orking.intempora.ry} post oI full time sweeper on compassionatb^{groundstvlPPS Dhandempally,} Nalgonda Mandal and District.

¶16

Nalgonda Mandal and District.

¶17

1. P. Nlarsimha, S/o Anjaiah, aged^{about 48 years, Wdrkingiq!p} lemporary post of full tirne Sw-eeper oq compqglionate^grounds in^{CPS Siripuram,} iMarpally Mandal, Rangareddy^{District, TS.}

¶18

10.Ch.'Ra'malingaan, 5/6 Bixamaiah,^{Aged about 45 yrs, Occ Workingin the} temporary^p5st of full time sweeper^{on. co.[npgsSionategrounds in P.S.} Nariimhapiram, Nakrekal [\Iand al,^Nalgonda {strict.

¶19

11.V. MaHari'rma, W/o Saidulu, Aged^{about 55 years, Occ Workingin the} temporary^post of full time sw-eeper on^{compassionategrounds in P.S-} Thoragal, Kanagal Mandal.^{Nalgonda district, TS.}

¶20

l2.ShaikJani Miya, S/o Nanne^{Sab, aged about 46 years, Ulor!!ryintemporary} post of full tiine sweeper on compassionate^grounds At^{PS Ramapuram,} Chilkur Mandal, Suryapet District,^TS.

¶21

13.K. Saidulu, S/o Saiiu,'Aged about 36^{years, Occworlin_g} !!^{the temporary} post of full iime sweeper on compassion-ate^grounds, in^{P.S. Ramanujapuram,} Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda district,^Ts

¶22

14.K. Nagabhushanam, S/o. Ramulu, Aged about 58 years, Occ workino in the temporary^post of -full. time sweeper on compassionate grounds, in p.S. Sirikonda , Mothe Mandal, Suryapet district, Ts

¶23

1 5. T. Yellamm a. W lo Ramulu, aged about 55 years. Occ workino in the LeTpgrary^{post of f} !. Jime^{sw_eeper on iompassionategrolnds,} in P.S.Suryapet, Atmaku(S) Mandal, Suryapet district, ts

AND

...PET!T!ONERS

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High cou( may be pleased to issue an order or direction mote particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents to treat the services of the petitioners by converting their contingent posts on compassionate grounds as regular one in the rast grade post for continuousry working tifl date decades together on and arso extending the last grade services pay benefits with periodicar increments revised from time to time with effect from their initial appointment to till date with a'ears as per G.o.Ms.No.6B7, d1.03.10.1977 and G.o.Ms.No.661, dt.23.10.2008 to titt date is highty illegal unjust and unfair as frer Article 14, 16,21 , 39(department), 43 and 300(a) of constitution of rndia for subjecting them for exploitive enslavement taking advantage of herpress conditions of poverty, poor social, economical and poriticar background by the respondents herein in continuing them on pittance wages of Rs.1623/-p.M at present by treating them as bonded labour or sraves as such pay is not equar to cost of singre mear of a day of respondents herein and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioners in contingent posts as regurar one in rast grade posts for all purposes by granting rast grade pay with periodicar increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioners fro working

¶35

¶36

decades together without any service progress by calling records to pay 100(PERCENT) compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 dated 19-02-2019 in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of UP and Batch cases (reported in 2O1g 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37 by reckoning the contingent services of petitioners as qualifying service to grant pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per principle laid in the'case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-2018, followed by DB Orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in WP No. 26788 of 2017 dated 10-08-2017 (DB) with costs by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution.

¶37

lA NO: I OF 2022

¶38

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to pay last grade time scale benefits to the petitioner as paid to full time contingent sweepers of panchayat schools in proceedings Nos. 431173119, dt. 25.10.2021, 12tilA\t2o1s, dt. or.1o.2o1s with periodical increments revised from time to time, till converting their contingent sweeper posts provided on compassionate grounds into regular last grade posts as per orders granted by this Hon'ble Court in similarly situated case in l.A.No.1/2018, W.P.No.769812018, dt.09.03 .201 B.

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH.GANESH counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 To 3 & 7: Gp FoR sERvrcgs-l counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 To 6: sRr PRADEEP REDDY KATTA

¶40

The.Court made the following: ORDER

¶41

¶42

SN. J

¶43

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶44

WRIT PETITION No.32O3O oF 2(J22-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

' Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3& 7 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶47

The oetitioners aooroached the Court seekino praver as under:

¶48

"..........to issue an order or direction mote particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents to treat the services of the petitioners by converting their contingent posts on compassionate grounds as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date decades together on and also extending the last grade services pay benefits with^periodical increments revised from time to time with effect from their initial appointment to till date with arrears as per G.O. Ms. No.6B7 dt 03. 10. t977 and G. O. Ms. No. 661 dt 23. 10. 2008 to till date is highly illegal unjust and unfair as per Article 14, 16, 21 39(department), 43 and 300(A) of Constitution of India for subjecting them for exploitive enslavement taking advantage of helpless conditions of poverty poor social economical and political background by the respondents herein in continuing them on pittance wages of Rs. 1623/p. M at present by treating them as bonded labour or slaves as such pay is not equal to cost of single meal of a day of respondents herein and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioners in contingent posts as regular one in lasi

¶49

¶50

SN, J

¶51

grade posts for all purposgs- bV granting last grade pay with periodicar increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment ,of the petitioners fro .working O"caA"i to-gethe, without any service progress by calling relords t;-;";ioot; compensation on arrears of pay_as per the principle fuid OV ine - idld Honbte supreme court in c.A No. z4to_tqqs "i dated L9.02.2019 in the case of Union of India Vs nvtar CninJ (3_019 (3]^ALD SC 32) and in rhe case of^prem Singh Vs staie o-r UP.and Batch cases reported in 2019 10 SCC S16 in paras 36 and.37 by reckoning the contingent services of petitioners ii qualifying service to grant pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per principle laid in the case of Netram Sahu Vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2O1g dated 23.03.2018 followed by DB Orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in W.P. No. 26788 ot 2Ot7 dated 10.08.2017(DB) with costs by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Honble'Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass.....,.

¶52

r! n h of

¶53

oetitioners olacino reliance on the averments made in the affid vit filed rn suoD rt of th Dresent writ oetition pertainino in particular. to the services rendered bv petitaoners with the resoondents herein for more than a de de coir ds th ttheo itioner are en itled for the

¶54

relief as oraved for in the oresent writ oetition.

¶55

PERUSEP THE RECORD:-

¶56

DISC USSTON A D CONCLUSION:-

¶57

Lea ed cou sel aDDearinq on behalf of the petitioners submits that the subiect issue in the oresent

)

SN, J

case is souarelv covered^{bv the order of this Court dated} og.o9.2o1o^passed in w.P.No.24377^{of 2OO7 reportedin} 2011(1) ALD. Paqe^{234 as confirmed in w.A.No.782of} 201O. dated 1O.O6.2013 and^{also order, dated 19.09.2017} oassed in w.P.No.27217^{of 2017 reportedin 2018 (2) ALD} Page 282 ancl also the orcter^{datecl 21.O4.2O2O oasseclin} W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted^{in 2O2O(4)ALD Paoe379.}

¶62

Learned standino counsel^{aooearino on behalf of the} respondent No.4 submits that the^{orievance ofthe} oetitioners as^put-forth in the oresent^{Writ Petition had} not been addressed to the respondents^{herein as on date} and therefore. the oetitioners cannot^{comolain inaction on} the nart af racntrntlantc harain in arrncid r.inrr iha grievance of the^petitioners and hence, the relief^as praved for bv the oetitioner in the oresent Wit^petition cannot be Sairted and no Mandamus can^{be issued} aoainst the resoondents hereunder as souqht^{for and the} petitioners mav be directed to out-forth the Detitioners' qrievance as put-forth in the present Writ Petition bv wav of a detailed representation to the respondents^herein qnrl rrn^ri raaairri af lha aail tsahtsaczlrtlrlirrn lha

<br>

SN, J

respondents would consider the same in accordance to

¶67

law, within a reasonable oeriod.

¶68

Learned counsel appearino on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the said submission made bv the learned standinq counsel aopearinq on behalf of the respondent No.4

¶69

The Aoex Court in the iudoment reported in^(202O) 1 SCC^(L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as under:

¶70

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 3040 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 employees 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 regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the^pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them rioht from the day they entered

/ /

SN, J

lr ! I I I I

persons as reoular^one'

hereunder:-

\ \

SN, J

hereunder:

"12. Despite being labelled as ,,part_time workers," the apBellants performed these essential task-s on a aiifv and continuous basis over extensiv" p.iiJa", ranging from over a decade to neariy two decades. Their engagement was_n9t sioradic ;;-il;;;;ry in nature, instead, it ff;';"_11entr regutar, and akin to,.the .""J"nlibitities typ-catty associated with sanctioneJ'roar". tqorlover, the respondents aia not ing"g. any other personnel for these. tast<-s- - ariing-" ff " appellants tenure, ,na"r""oring the indispensable nature of tneiiwort.

¶86

¶87

The recurri ng nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how

¶88

I ) (

¶89

r.-'..i"--.^.. ,;r;,&iffiIil&.;;.

-Llii}=:!&i&iir*.

SN, J

--'-**z'

-/./

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 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.

¶96

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 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 hiohliohts the judiciarv's role in rectifirrino such misclassifacations and ensurino that workers receive fair treatment.

¶97

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.

<br>

SN, J

It cateooricallv held that^{emolovees in} irreoular apoointments, who^{were enoaoed in} dulv sanctioned^posts and had^served continuously for more than ten^{vears should} be con ered for ularization as e 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 judgmentin Uma Devi} (supra) to argue that no vested right^to regutarization exists for temporary^employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of^{caseswhereregularizationis} appropriate. This selective^{application distorts} the iudqment's spirit^{and ouroose, effectlvely} weaoonizino it aoainst emoloyees^{who have} rendered indisoensable services^over decades.

¶102

In light of these considerations,^{in our} opinion, it is imperative^{forgovernment} departments to lead by^{examplein 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^{exposesthe organization} to legal challenges and^{undermines employee} morale. By ensuring fair^emfloyment practices, government institutions^can ieduce the burden of unnecessary^litigation, promote job security, and uphold th" 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} iollow, thereby contributing^{to the overall} betterment of^{labour practices in the country'}

) J

SN, J

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 extent:

¶107

i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.2018 are quashed ;

¶108

ii. The aopellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services resularised forthwith. However, the apoellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back waoes for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said period and the same would counted for their oostretiral benefits."

¶109

The Judgment of the Apex Cgurt dated 31.O1.2O25 reported in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIpAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NTGAM, GHAZTABAD". in particutar, the rerevant oara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

¶110

"15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services o*'er severat vears, sometimes soannino more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full. the Em lover's failure furnish such rdsrf acnita rliranlianc ia en-rf larere -ir adrrar.ca inference under well-established labour iurisorudence. rndian labour law stronoly disfavors

{

SN. J

perpetual daily-waoe or contractual^{enqaoements in} onooing municioal^{requirements vear after vear} cannot be dismissed^{summarilv. as disDensable} particularlv in the absence of a^{oenuine contractor} aoreement.^{At this juncture,it would be appropriateto} recall the broader^{critique ofindefinite"temporary"} employment^{practices as done by a recentjudgementof} this court in Jaggo^{v. union of India in the following} paragraPhs:

¶116

"22. The^{pervasive misuse of temporaryemployment} contracts, u.^{exemplifiedin this case, reflectsa} broadersystemicissuethatadverselyaffects workers' rights^{and job security' In the private} sector, the rise^{of the gig economy has led to an} increase in^{precarious employmentarrangements'} often characterized^{by lack of benefits, job security,} andfairtreatment.Suchpracticeshavebeen criticizedforexploitingworkersandundermining labour standards-^{Governmentinstitutions, entrusted} withupholdingtheprinciplesoffairnessandjustice, bearanevengreaterresponsibilitytoavoidsuch dxploitative^{eniploymentpractices' When public} sector entities^{engage inmisuse oftemporary} contracts, it not^{oniy mi..ors the detrimental trends} observed in^{the gig economybut also sets a} concerning^{precedent tnat can erode public trustin} governmental oPerations'

¶117

)i.^'rt is a^{disconcertingreality that temporary} employees,^{particularlyin government. institutions'} oftenrace'*uttiru."tedformsofexploitation'while the foundational^{purpose of temporary contracts may} haveoeentoaddressshort-termorseasonalneeds, they nave increasingly^{become a mechanismto 2024} SCConlineSC3826evadelong-termobligations

I I

SN, J

owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

¶123

o e^qao ed rw ork that IS ssential. recurrrno, n r areo ften labell as "tem ora^,, or t'contractua1." even whenth les mi

¶124

identical tasks.

¶125

. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cau.e o. ,otii"j i, ,"un in the present case. This practice unJei,iiines tne principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardiess of theluality or duration of their service. . Lack of- Career Progression: Temporary employees often find rnemserves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises, They remain stagnant in their rotes, iilating a systemic disparity between them and^'their regular counterparts, despite thdir contributions Ueing equally significant.

¶126

. Using .^{Outsourcingas aShield:Institutions} rncreasingly resort to outs_ourcing roles performed by !:Tpofu.fy^{employees,effectivelyreptacing} one set or exptoited workers with another. This prlctice not only ,perpetuates exploitation but atso O6monsirates a oetiberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

¶127

o Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits; Temporary employees are often denied fundamental b6nefits such as. pension, provident fund, health insuiance, and paid leave, even when their tenure- spans decades. This lack of social security suffic-ts'tnem and their families to undue hardship.Ep".iuffy in

SN, J

cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

¶132

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

¶133

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, L947, and that they were enqaqed in essential. perennial duties, these workers cannot be releoated to oeroetual uncertaintv. While concerns of municioal budget and comoliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutorv oblioations or neqate eouitable entitlements. fndeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trumo the leoitimate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended oeriod.

SN, J

ii I

e*tent the, confine the Aooettant workmen to future -"rningfrl^b".k *"o." is h.r"b, ".t arid. *ith th. following directions:

¶138

I. The discontinuation of the Appeilant workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and section 6N of the U.p. Industriat Disputes Act, L947, is declared iltegal. All oid"r, 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 5il prrposes, iniruding seniority and continuity in service.

¶139

II. The Respondent Emproyer sharr reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the d_uties they previousry performed) within four weeks from the date of this'judlment.

¶140

"9n!"or"nti"l^b.n"fit" "r"h ",^,"ni*it,,nd

¶141

IIr. considering the rength of service, the Appeilant workrnen shail be entiiled to 50o/o or [ne oac[ irug", froq the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three mont'hs from the date of their reinstatement.

¶142

¶143

SN, J

¶144

oosts. In assessino reoularization, the Emoloyer shall not impose educational or such procedural criteria retroactively if requirements were never apolied to the Apoellant Workmen or to similarly situated reoular emolovees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are reouired, the Resoondent Emplover shall expedite all necessarv administrative orocesses to ensure these longtime emolovees are not indefinitely retained on dailv waqes contrary to statutorv and equitable norms,

¶145

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."

¶146

The Aoex Court in a iudqment reoorted in^(2O17)1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaojit Singh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3), of the said judqment observed as under:

¶147

"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^gf the regular^pay- scale, 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:-

¶148

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or^{contractualappointee} against the regular sanctioned^{posts, if appointedafter} undergoing a selection^{process based uponfairness and} equality of opportunity to^{all othereligiblecandidates,}

( (

SN, J

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

¶153

(2t But if da wa rs. ad hoc or tra

¶154

(3) In the event, a ctaim is made for minimum pay scate after more than three years and two m'onths of completion of 10 years of .continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shalt be-intitted io arrears for a period of three years and two months.,,

¶155

¶156

¶157

k n h v M. .Kesart an othe an rti !ar. oaras 4to9 reads as

¶158

under:

¶159

The decision in State of Karnata devi*v. s rend red z. 2 4 1 ca Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relatingto appointment did not confer any right on the appoin tees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regutarization or reengaqement nor make their service permanent, and the High C^ourt in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, r,ggyla,rization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment nao been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; ana that the couis iurl- o. careful in ensuring that they do not interfere undury *itn nu economic

¶160

¶161

SN, J

¶162

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

¶163

"53. One aspect needs to be ctarified.^{There mav be} cases where irreaular aooointmenB^(not illeoal aooointmentsl as exolained in S.V.^Naravanaooa 17967⁽⁷⁾ SCR 7281. R.N. Naniundaooa f7972⁽⁷¹ scc 409 I and B.N. Naoa ian 17979⁽⁴¹ soTl and referred to in oara 75 above, of dulv^qualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant Dosts might have been made and the emoloyees have continued^to work for n vears or more but without the interuention of orderc of the courts or of^tribunals. The question of reaularization of the^{services of} such emolovees mav have to be considered^on merib in the light of the orinciples^{seEledbv this} Court in the cases abovereferred to add in^the lioht of this iudoment. In that context. the Union^of India. the State Governments and^their instrumentalities should take steos to^{reoularize as} a one-time measure, the services of^such irreoularlv apoointed. who have^worked for^{ten vears or more} in duly sanctioned^posts but not under^{cover of} orders of the courts or- of tribunals and^should further ensure that reoular recruitments^are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned^oosts that reduire to be filled uo. in cases^where temoorary emplovees or daily^{waoers are beind} now emoloyed. The orocess^{must be set in motion} within six months from this date.^....

¶164

"5. ft 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:}

¶165

(i) The employee concerned should^{have worked for 70 years or} iore in duty sanctioned^{post withoutthe benefit or protection of} the interim order of any court^{or tribunal. In otherwords, the} State Government or its instrumentality^{should have employed}

r (

SN, J

the emproyee and continued him in service voruntariry and continuously for more than tei yiurr.

¶170

(ii) The appointmentt.of such emproyee shourd not be iregar, even if irregurar.^-where .the ippointmenti-ile"not made or continued against _sanctio.ned -posts or wheie the persons appointed do not po:.:go the prescribea miniiii quarifications, the appointments.witt be ;";;;;;ud b be ittegat. dut where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working again_st.,sanctionei p9sts, tut nii ieen serected without undersoins the pror"i, t rrLizliiztiiir" setection, such appointmenti uru ,6niialii to ou irregular.

¶171

6' The term 'one-time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective. This wourd normary mea,n-that after the decision in um7.!eyi, eici'ali"rtrunt or ";;; instrumentatity should undertake a'one-tiie-elercise and prepare a rist of att casuar' dairv-wa,1- ?l "d iig-.uiptoyees wh{ n{* been working for more than ten. years withou[ tie intiilin:i, of courts and tribunals and subject thei-ii " proru* verification as b :zii';:: w h e t h e r t n quatification uv u T _y o rk i ro7 ! 9 u tii"'iott g u i-it u ica and n t- if ji so, sili resutarize theirii, a possess fhe

¶172

At the end of six months from _the dab of decision in tf i.'"'!;,f "'0":,i!,;'";:i.i:fr ;:"geraa-niiiiaiur,"ii:i;";; a e p a rt i-e i r J, a i i, t i iJ,i ",,ii ! ii ;,i?'iflii! i!!; j ; :{! : " time regurarization proi"tr'''"on -tnu " iii'"r'= nura, some Government departments or inistrumunt"iiiul' undertook the one-time u*uT:: __llctuding-, severat emjioyees from consideration either on the giiina m"t7iii, i'r{J'*uru pending in courts or due to tn"ir-iiuiiint. n s,iin-iiriirrtunces, the emproyees who were entitted to'be..gonsidered in terms of para 53 of the decision in u.uiuii, *itt Totl;;; ii,",) ,,gnt b be considered for regutariraiii,'' mterety oiiiiu,"'inu one_time

SN, J

exercise was^{completedwithoutconsidering their cases, or} because the^{six monthperiodmentioned in para 53 of Umadevi} has expired.^{The one-iimeexercise should considerall daily-} iig"tianoc/those^{employeesyho had put in 10 years of} continuous senrice^{as on10.4.2006 without availing the} protection of any interim^{ordersof courts or tribunals, If any} Zmpbyer had^{held the one-time exercise in termsof para 53 of} iiaaLvi, but did^{not considerthe cases of some employeeswho} were entitted to^{the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi,the employer} concerned should^{consider their cases also, as a continuation of} the one-time exercise.^{The one time exercise will be concluded} iiy wnen att the^{employeeswho are entitled to be considered} in ierms of Para^{53 of lJmadevi, are so considered'}

¶177

measure.

¶178

These appeals^{have been pendingfor more than four years} after the decision^{in Umadevi'The Appellant- (ZilaPanchayat'} Gadag) has ,oi^{,oitideredthe cases of respondentsof} i"gr)Tirution wiihin^{six months of the decisionin Umadevior} thereafter.

r
l'
/

SN, J

/,/./

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 shoutd now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daity wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) futfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of llmadevi. 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 1 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 suitable lower posts, This appea! is disposed of accordingly.

¶184

L4. fn the iudqment the Aoex urt an Nihal Sinoh hers v. P 1 sc 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appoanted 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 paad by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a

¶185

¶186

SN, J

¶187

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 contractuat relationship, its action is arbitrary. @

¶188

It lt

¶189

basis as,, accordino to it their apoointments were purelv bv the State.

i
{
I

(^f

SN, J

cannot me a lacence for exDloitation bv the State^and its instrumentalities and neither the Government^of Puniab nor those oublic sector^Banks can continue^{such a} oractice inconsistent with their^{obliqationto functionin} accordance with the Constitution.

¶195

The iudq ment of the Aoex Court reDorted in^2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu^{andothers v} Nellore Munic oal Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore Distri ct, Andhra Prad esh and others,^inoarticular paras 7 a nd 8 reads as under:

¶196

(7) We find it difficult to acceD t the reasonino adooted bv the Hioh Court. Th rioht of the aooellants to k reoularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.7994. The aDDellant have onde t issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to^{the issue of} G.O. tilI toda 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.

¶197

In the circumstance, 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 Court in^District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh &. Ors. 2009⁽⁸⁾ SCC 480.

¶198

¶199

SN, J

¶200

In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported (2O15) g SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that^.The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emolovment of those oersons who had served the state Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten years". fn that case, emolovee was workinq for 29 years. This decision aooroves earlier view exoressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.

¶201

In tqof Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad oorted in (2O14) 7 SCC 223- similar view was taken bv the Suoreme Court and it was held as follows :

¶202

"47.,,. In view of the cateaorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resoondent employees have continued in their service for morethan lo years continuously therefore the legal principle laid down by this court in umadevi case (state of Karnataka v llmadevi (2OOG) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarety applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the respondent emoloyees are entitled for the relief. the same cannot be interfered with by this Court."

f (

,:*."F-G7y'

SN, J

The Judgment of this^Court dated^06.12.2(J22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ol 2O19 which^pertaans to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi^Narasimha . Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division^{Benchof this Court} in W.A.No.937 ot 2o23 dated 1O.1O.2023 and^also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶209

The iudoment of the Aoex Court in^HariKrishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Other reoorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticular^oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶210

"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^{exeise such} gower. where the Government or a public authoriW has failed exercise or has wro lv exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute, or^{a rule, or} a^policy decision of the G rnment or has ercised such discretion mala fide. or .on^irrelevant consideration.

¶211

In all such cases, the High Court must^issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel^{performancein} an appropriate and lawful manner of the^discretion conferred upon the Government^{or a public authority"'}

¶212

¶213

SN, J

¶214

20- The Division Bench of this couft in its Judqment

¶215

observed as under:-

¶216

"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/circulars dated 20.L2.1999, 11.09. Lgg2, 06.L0.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regurarization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of section 2s-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex court, rightly held that the respondents are entifled 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."

¶217

The Division Bench of this court in its Judqment

¶218

dated 7 -O9-2IJ1,7 nassed in W-P-No-27r77 of 2lJ1.7

¶219

observed as under:-

¶220

"16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article L4L 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.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a

I /

SN, J

go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to one-time public posts, consciously ordered for absorption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directlons 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 22.4.1994, 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 regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 10 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated ,, L l^(!Otl ,l,r n,r+ rerhi}}la ,l.rr rrr fha r ri.lflr rrr.l iha iudgment in /rfanjula Bashrnf's case^(suora). does not l(tt rer the trricct.trv (rf t h Ftl rectia!ns iscrred hv tho Suoreme Court in Para 53 o its iudoment in Uma Devi's z.raa /cr rnrr I Ti ic ihara f ra rtrai nar.riticc h a f.rr. tha resDondents to take shelter under Act 2 ot L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to the oetitioners, who have. admiftedlv. satisfied the criteria laid down in Para N .53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case^(suora).

¶225

For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27,6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 20t4t on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and^{iha rrrr.it nalilian} ic rlla rrrilh iha d ..a.tir!rr +.i tha respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners aoainst the existano vacancies of Work Inspectors and aoooint them subiect to their satisfyino the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in U, ma Devi's case^(supra). This orocess must be comoleted within two months from the date of receiot of a coDv of this order."

¶226

The Division Bench of this Court an its Judoment dated 21.O4.2O20 oassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe

¶227

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

¶228

"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

¶229

¶230

SN, J

¶231

the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

¶232

48- It is not known whv e 1st resoondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case^(suora),as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken^a ana-firrra avarniea aC rtratt.e rina iha lic* aC rlrilrr lrrtrra employees who had worked for more than ten^{(1O) years} without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 1O.4.2OO6 and subject them to a^process verification^as to whether they are working against vacant^posts and oossess requisite^{qualifications} for the^posts, and if^so, regularize their services.

¶233

Accordingly, the writ^petition is allowed; the^impugned orders dated 20.8.2019^passed by the 1st respondent^rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services^{on one-} time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary^{and violative of} Articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;^the respondents are directed to regularize on one-time^basis oetitioners' services from the date each of the^petitioners complete 1O years of service on daily^wagesfromthe initial dates of their appointment. But, thev shall not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise^{shall be} done within two⁽²⁾ weeks from the date of^{receipt of} copy of the order."

¶234

This Court ooines that in the^present case^the respondents failed to discharoe their duty in examinino the request of the oetitioners for reoilarization^of petitioners' services, who is workino as full time sweeoer anrl fir at ta aancirler t hair rarrrracf trr trarf tha temoorarv service of the^{petitioners in the last orade post} of full time sweeper as reoular^{one for all ouroosesbv} grantinq last grade pay with^periodical increment^revised

I /

SN, J

from time to time from the date of aDDointment of the oetitaoners, an accordance to law.

¶239

2,4. This Court oDines that Detitioners are entitled for consideration of oetitioners' case for^qrant of the relief as oraved for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in various iudqments ( referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judqments referred to and extracted above,

¶240

Takino in consideration:a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationers and learned standing counse! appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5

¶241

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

¶242

i)(202o) l scc (L&s) (ia) 1990(2) SCC Page 396

¶243

¶244

SN, J

¶245

(iii) 2025 rNsC 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(Sc) L2O9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) l4scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2Ot1(1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶246

d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7B2 of 2O1O and 854 of 2Ot2 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OOg (referred to and extracted above),

¶247

e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.2ZZL7 ol 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above),

¶248

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21,.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above).

/
/
(

SN. J

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

¶253

¶254

Writ Petiti ntsa lowed e etiti ne directed to Dut-forth the laim of the Detitioners for reqularization of oetitioners' services, and also the claim of the Detitioners to treat the temDorary services of the oetitioners in the last orade oost of Sweeoer as reoular one for all ourooses bv o ntinq last^qrade Dav with oeriodical increments revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the^petitioners and all conseouential benefits, dulv enblosino all the relevant documents in suooort of oetitioners' case as out-forth in the oresent writ oetition, within a oeriod of one^(O1) week m the dat er n h resoondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law. in conformitv with orincioles of natural the oetitioners. in terms of orders oassed bv the Suoreme the i udoment Da ssed tn w .P.No.243 77 of 2OO7 dated 08.09.2O10 reoorted in 2011 (1) ALD, Paoe 234 and as

¶255

¶256

SN, J

¶257

confirmed in W.A,No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O6.2O13,^and also as oer Division Bench Judqment of this Cpurt^dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2007 reoortedⁱⁿ 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 and also the Division^Bench Judqment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O^{oassed in} I.A.Nos.1 of 2O in 1 of 2OL9 in W.P.No. 3Os7 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4rALD oaoe 379^{which had aftained} finality. within a^period of four^{(O4) weeks from the date} of receiot of a copv of this order,^{dulv takino into} consideration the observations and^{the law Iaid down bv} the Aoex Court in the various iudoments^{(referred to and} extracted above), and in^{particular,oara No.53 of the} iudoment of the Apex Court in the^case of^{State of} Karnataka^y. Uma Deyi and duly^{communicate the} decision to the oetitioners.^{However,there shall be no} order as to costs.