Allowed

S. Veera Naresh v. The Government of Telangana And 3 Others

Telangana HC6 Aug 2025WP/34306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a temporary librarian appointed on compassionate grounds in 2001. The court directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner's services treating them as permanent and granting parity in pay scale, periodic increments, and all consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's services shall be treated as regular; last grade pay with periodic increments granted from date of appointment; consequential benefits directed.

S. Veera Naresh Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 34306 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

S. Veera Naresh, S/o. Late Rama Brahamam.^{Aged. 42 years, Occ. working} in Temporary^post on compassionate^{groundsas Librarran,villageLibrary} Vepala Singaram village, Mandal. Huzurnagar,^{District. Suryapet.Telangana} state

¶9

...PETrrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Government of Telangana State^{Rep. by the Principal Secretaryto} Education Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Government of Telangana State, Rep^{by Principal Secretary to Govt} Finance and Planning Department Secretariat^Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director of Public Libraries, Govt of Telangana Govt of Telangana Telangana^{Afzalgunj,Hyderabad.}

¶14

3 The Director of Public Libraries, Govt of Telangana Govt of Telangana Telangana^{Afzalgunj,Hyderabad.} 4 The Chairman Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha,^{Surypet, DistrictTelangana} State. Suryapet, Rep by its Secretary

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order or direction more^particularly one^{in the nature of writ} of Mandamus to declare the action^{of respondentsin not converting contingenl} services of the^petitioner as^{regular one in the post of LibrarianGr- lll for} continuously working as Librarian^{on compassionategroundsfrom 2610712001} even after 22 long^years by^not extending^{time scale monetary benefitswith} per/odical increments revised from time to time with arrears^{as per G.O.iVls.No.} 687, dt.03/1 O/ 1977 to till date is^{highly uniust, unfairand totally illegal for} violating Article 14,16,21,39,^(d),43 and^{300(4) of Constitution of lndia by not} implementing Section^'1 3 and¹ 5 of^{MinimumWagesAct 1948 andEqual} Remuneration Act 1976 by subjecting^{the petitionerfor exploitative enslavement} due to his helpless conditions of^{poverty, poor social economical and political} background by taking it as advantage by^{the respondentsin spite of abolition of}

¶17

Bonded Labour as^per Act 1976 in payrng pittance wagor of Rs.1623/- pm till date instead of^paying living legitimate wages as per F ( ts, Laws, Rules and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the tern I rrary appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds as Librarian by g ranting time scale monetary benefits of Librarian Grill with periodical increme- revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner to .ill date by applyrng principle laid by Hon'ble Apex Court to grant 100 percen.i €te compensation on arrears of pay as per Judgment in c.A. No. 3416 - 3445 cf 2)o1o dt.19l2t2o1g in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avatar Chand (2019 3 AL. ) SC 32) by treating regular one as per principle laid by Apex Court in the cas: of prem Singh Vs. State of UP and Batch cases (2019 10 SCC 516) by app ying principle in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. in ( ivil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018 dated 2310312018 to reckon the contingent servic( s of petitioner in the temporary post of Librarran for computation of qualifyin; service to sanction pension and Gratuity by applying aforesaid principles ta r by the Honourable Apex court under Article 141 of our constitution by this Hr,r crurable court in this case to do^justice to the petitioner

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 15'l cPC praying that in the ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High co r t may be pleased to direct the respondent herern to treat the temporary por;l of Librarian of the petitioner provided on compassionate grounds vide proc. I tater) 2610l l2oo1 by the 4th respondent as per G.O.Ms No. 687 dated. 03,,.1 jl1977 on par with regularly engaged Librarian of the respondent department ty granting monetary benefits of time scale of the post of Librarian Gr.lll with 6:r/odical rncrements revised from time to time

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: AGP FOR SERVICt_; I Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRADEEP REDDy. ;C

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

s.,] $p 14106 2022

¶24

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶25

WRIT PETITI ON N o.34306 0^{F 2fJ22}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned^{counsel appearingon} behalf of the^petitioner and the^{learnedAssistant} Government Pleader for Services-I^{appearing on behalf of} the respondents.

¶28

2. The^p etitioner approaclre heCo eekinq Draver

¶29

as under:

¶30

"...to issue an order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of^{Mandamusto declarethe} action of respondents in^{not convertingcontingent} services of the^petitioner as^{regular one in the post of} Librarian Gr. III for continuously^{working as Librarianon} compassionate^grounds fron^{26.07.2001even after22} long years by not extending time^{scale monetary} benefits with^{periodical increments revisedfrom time to} time with arrears as^{per G.O.Ms.No.687, dt:03.10'1977} to till date is highly unjust,^{unfair and totallyillegal for} violating Article 14, 16,^21., 39,(d),^{43 and 300(A)of} Constitution of India by^{not implementing Section 13&15} of Minimum Wages Act^{1948 and EqualRemuneration} Act 1976 by subjecting the^{petitloner for exploitative} enslavement due to his^{helplessconditionsof poverty,} poor social economical and political background^by taking it as advantage by^{the respondents in spite of} abolition of Bonded^{Labour as per Act 1976 in paying} pittance wages of Rs. 1623/- pm till date instead of paying living legitimate wages as^per Acts, Laws, Rules

Yt'!:-.',rlflfi',",

SN-] \p 11106 2022

{

and prays to direct the respcndents hereir '()^{treat the} temporary appointment of^petitioner on^{co npassionate} grounds as Librarian by granting time sc,r 3 monetary benefits of Librarian GT.III with^{periodicaincrement} revised from time to time from the date^{of rllpointment} of the petitioner to till date by applying^{pri r:tple laid by} Hon'ble Apex Court to grant 1007o^{com l:nsationon} arrears of^pay as^per Judgment in C.A.^{No 3416-3445} of 2010 dt: 19.02.2019 in^the case of^{Uniorr of IndiaVs.} Avatar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) by^{tre. I nq reqular} one as per^principle laid by Apex Court^{irr the case of} Prem Singh Vs. State of UP and Batch^{car;::; (2019 10} SCC 516) by applying^principle in the ca';'of^Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Anr.ⁱⁿ Ci'l^AppealNo. 7254 of 2018 dated 23.03.2018 to^r3ckonthe contingent services of^petitioner in the ter^porarypost of Librarian for computation of^{qualifyinc service to} sanction^pension and Gratuity by apply^{r g1 aforesaid} principles laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court^{r nder Article} 141 oF our Constitution by this^Hon'ble Cou-^{in this case} to do justice to the^petitioner and^{pass :,r r;h orderor} order as this Hon'ble Court^{may deem flt I td properin} the interest of^j ustice...^"

¶36

3 ea rned counsel aD Dearanq^on I lf of th oetitioner olaci o reliance^{on the avrmen} li^{madein the} affi vit filed in suDport of the^presenI rt etitio pertatininq in particular, to the s rvtce! rendere dbv oetitioner with the^{resoondents hereinfo rmorethan a} decade contends th t the oetitioner^{is er titled} r he relief a oraved for tn the Drese nt^{writ petit irn.}

¶37

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

¶38

:. Zlil .;r-.i^i: {ffi,:ffii.'ffii;

¶39

¶40

SN.J \,p 31306 2022

¶41

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

¶42

4, Learned counsel aDp rnq on behalf of the petition er submits that the subiect issue in the Dresent case rs sq uarelv covered bv theorder of this Cou rtdate^d 08.09.2010 Dassed in W.P.No .24377 of^20O7 reoortedⁱⁿ 2011(1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O10, dated 1 .06.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 passed in W, P.No.272t7 ot 2O17 reDorted in 2O 18⁽²⁾ ALD oassed in Paqe 282 and also the order dated^21.O4.2O2O W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)^{ALD Paqe 379.}

¶43

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for^Services-I aopearinq on behalf of the resDondents submits that the qrievance of the oetitioner as out-forth in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the^{res Dondents} herein as on date and therefore. the oetitioner^cannot comolain inaction on the^p art of resoondents^{herein in} con side ri n^q the^{qraevanceoLthe} Detitioner^andhence,the relief as^p raved for bv th etitioner in the^present Wit oetition cannot be^qranted and no^{Mandams can be} issued aqai nst the resooncle nts hereunder as souoht^for and the oetitioner mav be di rected to out-forth the

¶44

!-I

¶45

¶46

SN.J rP -'r 1106 2012

¶47

iti ner's rl n as u -f rth in h( present Writ Peti ion b wa a re reser ati nt th res n en s ereln et E_ f he id re f senta ton the r s on o I con t;l er hes in accordance to law, within a reasonable o5 1iod.

¶48

6 n c un el r b h lf of the Deti ron r o no di u th s d sub sl m erv the Iearn ed As sta tG ver m ntP ad r rvl s-I -appcarurs_s! behalf oft he resDo den ts.

¶49

7,7 e ex Co th ud m tr ed in (2 o20) 1 cc L in Pr m n V a of Uttar Prades h and her a ar 3 el as d r

¶50

"36. There are some of the employees who h; r € not been regularized in spite of having rendered the ser,, ces for 3040 or more years whereas they have been sup< rannuated. As they have worked in the work_charged ei: blishment, not against any particular project, their servr(( s ought to have been regularized under [he Government rstructions and even as per the decision of this Courr- i r State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court l the said decision has laid down thaL in case services rave been rendered for more than ten years without the : rrrer of the Court's order. as one-time measure, the j :rvices be regularized of such employees. In the facts r,. the ca se, tnose employees who have worked for ten ye.t s or more should have been regularized. It would not b r lr^{ro per} to regulate them for consideration of regularizatrc r as oth ers have been regularized, we direct that their j rr-vices be

, ,*i. !..,

SN.J ru.p 34J06 2022

treated as a regular one. However it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claimi ng any dues of difference rn wages had theY been contin ued in service regularly before attain ing the age oF super a nnuation. They shall be entitled to i-eceive the pension as if they have retired e r blishm nt th r d e r fr h d e n r or -ch r e n d VI f U ose e

¶55

h x our int e case D ad rt P D Litera te Dail v Waqe Em DI vees Assoc iatron Vs. State of Ka na k re ort in1 2 ccP la d r n that the State hou ld not keeDA DE rson tn tem ora rv or adhocs rv! e for lonqD riod and have to treat such ers n sre lar on

¶56

P a o 3o th th u en of th A x urt in th s te of rnat a d oth rsV U ad vt a 1 .o4.20 6 e rt 2 06) 4 scc 1is extract her un r:',5 o e s ctn ds e cla ifa , There a e s wh e rr ara 1n e s n e 9 tn e tscR as12 x la.N.n N ntn s. ar 97a a s 9 an B N.N ara n 1 7 c o7 an r fer d or ra1 b ve o d ua fi st d n tone vac n o ts th v b en mad e ndthee plovee h ve contin ued to wor J rte o mor wt o t

.r.-r

Sl..l $p lll0r,2012

r l rf trab nal to ! tc o uch h .! m 'turcrltiln ;_ gpur!-lnlhc h rt TI n I qhto f this n n ( f Indi the irl r tr Jm^{nta litie} ne-time houl t ke e la tz me he rv t h irre ul I! I a Ore^aoPointed, ind^ulv w r f rrders of the ft 1 -ensure^that o fill tho^se r v ) lE-l!!!cd--up. ln ca s here temD^{orarYemolovees oldailvwaqers} r afeb inq^{now emoloed.TheorocessIustbeset in} motio n within^{six months fromthisdt(}

¶61

Th u m nt ft ex o d te j 2 .L2 2024 re o d 24 La UI s 1 9 J C u Anita nd othe v Union f o her and the^reley,ant 28^. rre xtr cte Dara q raoh Nos.1 2, L3 24,26.27^and

¶62

hereunder:

¶63

"12. Despite being^{labelled as "par} t-time *11t..t,i the^{apfellantsperformed} these nuous essentiil^{tasks on a dailY and con:} from ;;;i; ;.t over a decade extensive^{to nearlY} Periods'^{two-- decaoe:;} -ranging Their attgrga-ant^{was not sporadicor ten't} )ora ry rgular, in^{-nuir.a, instead, it was recurrent'r'l} pically "nJ^{ir.in to theresponsibilit-ies--tv} eover, issociated^{with sanctionedposts' Mc't} other the resPondents^{did not engageanY} for these^tasksdu-rirt I^the ;;;t";;:i the appellants^tenure, -underscoringl indispensaOle^{nature of their worx'}

¶64

¶65

SN.J $P Il]06 2022

¶66

The cla bvt he resoondents that these were not reo u ar Dost s lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aDDellants was Derennta and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recu rfl n g 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 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.

¶67

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 hiqhliqhts lhe iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq suc ml at ns nd rtn h workers receive fair treatment.

¶68

¶69

s.1 rrp 34306 2022

¶70

While the^{judgmentin Uma Devi t:} r.rpra ) sought to curtail the^{practice of backdoore} r tries and ensure appointments^{adhered to constitt} tional s; are principles, it is regrettable that its^{princip t} often misinterpreted or^misappliedto deny legitimate claims of long^{serving employee:} . This l,:ga l" judgment aimed to distinguish between^'i and " irregu lar" appoint^r r ents. It ca teoorica llv^held that em olover s in ( irreqular aooointments,^{who were enoa} -ed-rtr sa nctioned Do and had I lrved duly contin u ouslvf or more than^{ten vea rs} 5 rould be considered for requ^{la rization} as ! _onetime measure. However,^{the laudableir} t :nt of the^judgment is being^{subverted when instI} u tio ns rely on its dicta to^indiscrim inately^rejt: t the claims of employees, even^{in caseswhetr} the ir appointments are not^{illegal, but merel} lack adherence to^{proceduralformalities.Gove r} rment departments often^{cite the judgmentin Urr} r Devi (supra) to argue that no vested^ri- rt to regularization exists for^{temporary em;'l} )yees, I overlooking the judgment's xplicit acknowledgment of^{caseswhere regularlz:} .ion is appropriate. This selective^{aoolication cL!} itorts the iudoment's sDirit a nd^purpo effe ! tivelv weaDonr zinq it a^{qainstemDlovees wh g} _have rendered indisoensable servrces _ -^over decades,

¶71

In light of these considerations, rll OUf r ment opinion, it is imPerative^forgov(l departments to lead by^{example in proviti} rg fair and sta ble employment.^{Engaging worke-} on a temporary basis for extended^{periods, e:'1} ecially when their roles are integral^{to the organ;} a tio n's functioning, not only contravenes^interr rtional Iabour standards but also exposes^{the orgar} i:.ation to legal challenges and undermines^ent rloyee /ment morate. By ensuring fair^emPlr: can practices, government institutiont; reduce the burden of unnecessary^Iiti< atio n,

re.wxsi

SN..I \p 34i06 2022

promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with internationat standards and sets- a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributang to the overalt betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶77

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:

¶78

i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.20 LB are quashed ;

¶79

ai. The aoo lla nts shall be taken ba k on dutv forthwith and their vtc r lari d forthwi h. wev I the ell ts sh I not e en dto an unrar be efits/ back waqes for the oeri od the have not work ed for but would be entitled to conti nuitv of servtces for the said period and he same w uld coun ed for err t- retiral benefits.l

¶80

Th Judo ment oft he Apex Court dated 31 .o1.2025 reDortecl an 2025 I NSC 144 in "S HRIPAL AND ANOT HER v. NA GA R NIGAM, GHA ZIABAO", in oarti ular, t e releva nt Dara N os .15 to 19 are extractedhe reu nder:

¶81

"15. It is manifest th t A lla nt orkm n nti o de ervl over several rs m time n re th nad

¶82

'*.,Tr=]ry,lffiilffis'J-w. :11::.

¶83

¶84

SN.J r\p 3{l(16 2022

¶85

Even if certa in muster rolls were not orc'r luced in full the Emolover's failure to furnish sur h recordsdesoite directions to do so-all ows an adverse inferen ce under well-establisht :tlabour i u risorud ence. Indian labour Iaw stron r lv disfavors er etual dail -w r r ual enr) rqements in circumstances wh re the work is ot rmanent in nature. Morallv and leqallv, workers who fulfil onqoino municiDal reouirements vea t _ after vear cannot be dismis ed summarilv as lispensable, oarticularlv in the absence of a oenuir ! I contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be i ppropriate to recall the broader critique oF indefinitt: "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following paragraphs:

¶86

"22. The pervasive misuse of tempora^- employment contracts, as exemplified in this ce : e, reflects a broader systemic issue that adva -:;ely affects workers' rights and job security. Ir the private sector, the rise of the gig economy^I as led to an increase in precarious employment i rrangements, often characterized by lack of benefitr; job secu rity, and fair treatment. Such^practices have been criticized for exploiting workers anrl undermining labour standards. Government institut⁽ ns, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairnes s and^j ustice, bear an even greater responsibility^t r avoid such exploitative employment^practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse )l'temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrⁱ rrental trends observed in the gig economy^but ,llso sets a concerning precedent that can^{erode p-} :lic trust in governmental operations.

¶87

¶88

S.J !\p-i.li06 2012

¶89

It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, oFten face multifaceted forms of exoloitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owecj to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

¶90

o Misuse of Te mDora rv" Labels: Emolovees enqaoed for work that is essential, recurrinq, and inteoral to the fun ioninq of an instatutaon are often la bel! ed as "temDorarv" or "contractu a 1. " eve n when their roles mirror those of reoular emplovees. Such m i scla ssificatio n deorives workers of the r dionitv. secu itv. and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to, despite performinq identical tasks.

¶91

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

¶92

. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates

¶93

¶94

SN.J \p i1106 2022

¶95

a deliberate effort to bypass the ob1 r ation to offer regular employment.

¶96

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefi s: Temporary employees are often denied fundar^:ntal benefits such as pension, provident fund, he; ll:h insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security ;Jbjects them and their families to undue hardshitr especially in cases of illness, retirement. 0 unforeseen circumstances."

¶97

16, The High Court did acknowledge ,l t: Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. C)onsequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wag⁽ 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 Lrn, ortain status. While the High Court recognized the impor tance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizati() r it failed to afford them continuity of service or meanin!t1 ul back wages commensurate with the degree of statr tlry violation evident on record.

¶98

L7. In light of these considerations,^1l o Employer's discontinuation oF the Appellant Worknr:r standsⁱⁿ violation of the most basic labour law^princil'les. Once it is established that their services were teror lated^without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the^{J.P. Industrial} Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev wer enqa ed tn essential Derennial duti s these^work ! rs_ta_[_Iet _be releoated to nerrtetual u ncertaintv.^W 'I rile concerns of municiⁿ al bud^flaf an^d como iance with

rre

SN.J \vp 1.1i06 2022

recru itment rules merltcoⁿ sideration^{such concerns} do not absolve the m^It lover of^{statutorvoblioations} ne ate ur bI e lement Indeed b u rea ucratic limitati on^s cannot t^{rumo the leqitimate} ed continuous lv in riqhts of workmen w l'r^o have^se de facto reqular rol es for^{an extended period.}

¶103

The tmp ed order of the^Hiq h Court, to^the extent thev confine the Aooella nt Workmen to^future dailv-waoe enqaq ement without conti n uitv or meanrn^qful back wa oes, is^{herebv set asidewith the} followinq directions:

¶104

I. The discontinuation of the^{AppellantWorkmen's} services, effected without compliance^{with Section 6E} and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial^{Disputes Act,} 1947, is declared illegal. All orders^or communications terminating their^servicesare 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.

¶105

II. The Respondent Employer shall^reinstatethe Appellant Workmen in their respective^posts(or posts akin to the duties they previously^performed) within four weeks from the date of this^judgment. Their entire oeriod of abse^{nce (from} the date^of termana tion until actual r^ei nstatement)^shallbe counted for coirtinuitv of service and all co nseo uentia I benefits, such as s nioritv^and eliqibilitv for motions, if anv.

¶106

III. Considering the length of service, the^Appellant Workmen shall be^entitled to 50o/o^{of the back wages} from the date of their discontinuation^{until their}

¶107

¶108

SN.J wp 14106 2022

¶109

actual reinstatement. The Respondenl :mployer - shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement..

¶110

IV. The Res Dondent Emolover is directedto initiate a fair and transoarent process for reo u la rizi no the Aopellant Workn1in within six s from the te ln rr:ement, dulv considerino the fact that thev h;l! :e__pe-ffelllted Derennial municipal duties akin t ) Derma nent the posts. In assessinq requlari zation EmD lover shall not imoose erl .rcational or such plocedural criteria retroactiv(] v if reoutrem ents were never aDt, ied to the ADDreoular ellant emolovees Workmen in the or to oast.simi Tt 'Iy--si!ue!cdI^{the extent} that sanctioned vacancies for suc! _^{d uties exist} or are required, the Respondent I nplover shall exDedite all necessarv administra I ve Drocesses to ensure these lonqtime emplo''ees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waqc s contrarv to statutorv and equitable norms.

¶111

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

¶112

L2, The Aoex cou rt ln a tu doment reDort€,( in^(2O17) 1 Court Cases 14 inS teofP a b and others vs Jaoiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and rts sub-paras (1)(2)(3). ot the said iudome nt observed as r rnder:

¶113

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, r,ntlle adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum o'^-lte regular payscale, merely for the reason, that the activit)e ; carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were simila . The full bench

¶114

¶115

S.J r\p ili06 2022

¶116

however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in. eith.er of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the mtnimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employeis. The exceptions recorded by the futt bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶117

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.

¶118

But t at wa hoc co ctu AD intees ate not aDDoin ted aoa inst ular sanctioned posfs and se av, con tinuous lv th notional reaksv the ta te Government or its instru ntali for a suffi. t lono oeriod i.e. for 7 veats, such dai,lv waoe ad hoc or contr,'actuala DOrn shall be entitledto mtntmum of the ular oav scale ivithout anv allowances on the assum tion that wo of Deren n,al nature is avai.lable and ha vinq work for such lono oe of ti e, an eouitable rioht is created in such cateoorv of rsons. Th eir cla t for reqularization if an mav h vetob e consi d seoaratelv in terms of leqallv Dermissible sch e.

¶119

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

¶120

The iudoment of t eApex Court rEDorted in 2010(9) scc 247 between: State of Karna taka and others v M.L.Kesari and other .INDA rti ar s4 read

¶121

u nder:

¶122

The deciston in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered n 10.4.2 re orted i 2 06 CC1 In at cas Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made

¶123

¶124

SN,J wp 34 !06 2022

¶125

without following the due process or the I l,?s relattng to appointment did not confer any right on th( appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regu. .'zation or reengagement nor make their service permane, , and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art < 'e^{226 of the} Constitution should not ordinarily issue directiotl for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unles; the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, trl ,lerms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts m I ;r be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly vy,t t the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its r stru menta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita, e the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. l l i:; Court fu rther held that a temporary, contractual, casual : 'a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be,r ade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the re.l, t,ant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constit) 'ion. This Court however made one exception to the above p t:;ition and the same is extracted below :

¶126

"53. One asDect needs to be clarified .-Theteaay-be cases where irreoular ao ointm ent; (not illeqal aDDointm ents ) as exolained in S.V .- Xarayata.ppa 7 sc R.N. Nan un t^{pa_Il_ez2_(7)} SCC 4O9l and B.N, Naqaraian [ 7975^,-( 4) SCC sOTl and refe d to in Dara 75 above, ot '-- daly-s@!!t!e!! Dersons in dulv sa ctioned vacant Da : ts_Jn!S_h!^hA.ve been made and the emolovees hav ? :continued^to work for ten vears or ore bui _without the intervention of orders of the courts i- of tribunals. The auestion of ularization of tl e services of such emolovees mev have to be < onsidered on merits in the oh of the orincioles : e-tt!ed--by-!hE Court in the cases abovereferred to zr r the ht f d me In at con the Union of the vernm - -^andtheir instrumentalities should take steps ta rcgUlafEE__AS a one-tim measure. the ices of s t <:h irresularlv aooointed. who have worked for ten _,ears or more in dul san but not L'1'det--eever-_at orders of the cou,'t< or of tribuna!:- and hou ld further ensure t,hat reoular rec, t itments are undertaken to fill tlt/]se vacant satt:_tJoled_j.eglt1 that reouire to hc t,ed uo, in cases wh ere em lo r ail ( rs are beino

¶127

¶128

Sr"".J rvp 34306-2022

¶129

ow o he st be moti, within stx mon q from this te....,

¶130

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

¶131

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duiy sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and ccntinued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶132

(ii) The appointment of such employee shoutd not be iltegal, 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 quatifications, the appointments will be considered to be i egat. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctianed posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

¶133

(iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon the con erned Gove ment or instru me talitv. to take ste to recrular'ize the services of those irreqularlv aDDointed emolo vees who had served for more than ten ts without the benefit or orotection of an interim o rders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time m sure. Umadevi, direc d that such one-tim e measure must be set in motion within six months mthed ate of its decision ren don 7 o6

¶134

The term^'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, sach department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a tist of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc emptoyees 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.

SN..I

rvp i,1306 2022

At the end of six months from the datt: of decision in Umadevi, cases of several da ily-wage/ad - hoc/ cz ;'Jal employees were still pending before Courts. Consec,r ently, several departments and instru menta lities did not con t lence the onetime regularization process. On the oth( t hand, some Government departments or instru mentalitie: undertook the one-time exercise excluding several e;r oloyees from consideratian either on the ground that their ca:.( s were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such ctrr Jmstances, the employees who were entitled to be considerecl i t terms of Para 53 of the decision in umadevi, will not lose^-l e'ir right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering tleir cases, or because the six month period mentioned in par; :;3 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should cr. r sider all dailywage/ad hoc/those employees who had put i, 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 witho t ' availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or \ iounals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in ter,j s of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sontt: :mployees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of umadt,, i, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as ,t continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise t/ tl be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled r ,be^considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considert:,

¶139

The ob ect behind the said direction ! ara 53 of Umadevi I two- fold. First is to ensure t n 1t those who have Dut more than ten rs of conttLq.9.gE__99!.y!9e_ without the Drotection of an terim orde !. ourts or tribun als before the da te of decision in Umadevi was rendered. are considered for reqularizatic n in view of their lon service. Secondisto ens( re that the deDartments / i nstrum entalities do not De rDetua te the ra m lo t, rilv-wa se/ad - hoc /casual for lon rto^tlse nd the n oeriodica llv reoularize them on t e oround that thev h ve served r more than ten vears. therebv defeatinq the'-._enstb.tt!ond or statutorv orovisions relatinq to re<:t uitment and a e of t. c:t rn is t.hat all Dersons who have worked for more than t 91 vears as on 70.4.2006 the date of dec ston in Umadet 1L hout th protection of anv interim otder of any coufl' )r unal. I vacant Dosts, Dosse ind the reouisite ou a Ufication. are entitled to be considered or reoularization The fact that

¶140

¶141

SN.J \p_)4306 2022

¶142

the emplover ha Sno t unde n such exercise of reou arization wtth n ix mont softh e decisio nIn Umadevlo r that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reoa toa limit,etl few. will not enti such emolovees, the riqht to be considered for reqularization IN terms of the abo directions in U adevi asaone -time measure.

¶143

These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents otf regularization within six months of the decision in LJmadevi or thereafter.

¶144

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 months, a geierat 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 (inctuding the respondents) futfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they futfitt 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 manths. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not futfitt the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regutarised. 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 appeat is disposed of accordingly.

¶145

L4. In the iudomen t of the ADex Cou in Nihal Sinoh and others v. State of P uniab re orted in 2013) 1 scc 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose

¶146

¶147

SN,J tp _i1306 2012

¶148

wages were paid by Banks at whose di ;posal their services were made availabte, It held that 1:l te mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did nol render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State anrl d iscipl ina ry control vested with the State. ft held that thr: :reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Sta.:, :, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ch ose to make appointments of persons creating contractua I relationship, its action is arbitrary. It als-c _ refused to acceDt the defence that there were no san ; joned oosts and so there was iustification for the Sta.e to utilise services of Iarqe number of oeo Dle like the a roe llants for decades. It held that lsanctioned p ts do r rot fall from heaven" and that the State has to creato them bva conscious choice on the basis of me ration;r asses ment of need. Referrinq to Umad evi it held that t h er appellants before them were not arhitraritvc hosen, their initial ADDointment was not an trred u r' aooointnr, : tasith d been made in accordance w th the statuto^g y orocedure

¶149

SN.J \vp iJl06 2022

¶150

-a-,

¶151

Dre scribed u nder thePolice Act. 1861 an thes te n be ea t s h are n en ifl to e bsor ed nt the servi of the Stat on erman nt ba a c tn toi h tr ointm nts wer UT m ar d ot ain tan sa nction ed sts crea d bv the State. I wa h ld that th ud en tn ma evt ca n not becomeali cencefor ex loitationbv the State and its instrum entalities and neither the Government of un bn rth e bri se rB ks nc tin esu ha ra lc tn srs nt with their obli ation to f nc ntn cco dan ewi hth Co stit tion.

¶152

The iudqmentof the Apex Court rEDorted in 2015 cc nlin s L79 be een B.Sr nrva lu d ers v ello M lcl al r ora ion Re b sC ml oner N I lore District, ndhra Prades h and others. rn Darticu la r Dara s 7 and 8 reads as under:

(7) t tn o b h U h n

SN.J rvP:14i06 2022

without regularising the service of the appellan : and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶157

B. In the circumstances, refusing the ben€t t of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appella 1ts approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not 1 tstified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyinq he order under appeal by directing that the appellants' service: be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this⁽ aurt in District Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh t Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 480.

¶158

In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar repor:ed^(201.5L8 SCC 26s, the Su D reme court held that 'I re objective behind the exception carved out in this case !^ras to permit regularization of such appointment, which rre irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointment;,. which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensurrr security of emplovment of those^persons who had ser! ed the State Government and thei r instru mentalities for rr ore than ten vears". In that case, emplovee was workinc L for 29^years. This decision aDproves earlier view^I )( p ress din M.L.Kesari extracted aIove.

¶159

In State of Ja rkhand v Kamal Prasa C reoorted in (20L4) 7 SCC 223, similar view was t kq--lylhc Su oreme Court and it wa s held as follows

¶160

¶161

SN.J Np 14106 1022

¶162

"47 In wo e l-2 orl I ,n ffa nth relevant contentiouS ,.s-sue that the resoonde t emolo vees ave con ued e rvlce rmo han con ouslv erefore. the lesaI principle laid down bv this Court in Umad,evi case (,Sfafe of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006 )4SCC 7:2OO6 cc^(L&s) 73) at oara 53 sd uarelv aDD t. es to the Dresent ses, C DiVts NBench of the H h Court has rtohtI held t the resDon dent emol'ovees are entitl.ed for the relief, the same cannot be rfe thb I Court."

¶163

The Judgment of this Court dated C,6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 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 ot 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and atso confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.32847 ot 2024.

¶164

The iudqment of th Aoex Court in Hari Krish na andir rust v tate ar htr nd oth rs re rted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in D a rticular ara os.10 d1 held lt w

¶165

"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-bou nd to exercrse uch ow r w heG v r m n ra c authori

¶166

has failed eto exercl eorhasw ron lv exercised

¶167

¶168

SN.J \vp 3,1306 2022

¶169

d iscretion conferred uoon it bv a statut( -gr-a-ru!c,-qr

¶170

a olic deci s no h G v rnment or t as-cx such discretion mala fide, or oj irre leva nt consider n

¶171

In all such cases, the High Court must ssue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel c:rformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of l^e discretion conferred upon the Government or a public .a tthority."

¶172

The Division Bench of this Court in i :s Judqment dated 1O.O6.2013 Dassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2010 and 854 of 2OL2 while uo holdinq the Judqment daterr 08.09.2010 oassed in W.P.No.243 77 of 2OO7 and C.C.l\rr.48 of 2OOB

¶173

observed as under:-

¶174

"Further, it is manifest from the material on €rcord that the services of the similarly placed persons who apl> cached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corpor,r ion a lso issued various office ord ers/circu la rs dated 20.12.19E ), rt.09.t992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 folr glu la rization of casuai/contract employees, It is also to be seen^' hat Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice : r any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factua ;:enario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for s rch a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is n,> l-ring but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Se(.t on 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying r r the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responcr rts are entrtled to regularization as directed in the impugnecl orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects rf the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our onsidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.'

¶175

The Division Bench of this Court in j _SIUdSrrnC11! dated 19 .o9.20L7 oassed in W,P.No,27rl .7 of 2017

¶176

¶177

SN,J \rp 14106 2022

¶178

r orted in 2O1 A D a 2 2 t a1 and ara 18 bserv as nde r: - '16, It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court ts binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in lJma Devi,s case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of lgg4 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.7994, 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 go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered foi one_time a bsorptio n/reg ula rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directioni 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.t994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not mad e any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la riza tion/a bsorotion exist_ T refo A of 1 4L an .o. No. 2 ed .4.1 4 n hi n wt th d nt Man a Ba Int ca su esn low th tr th di on sue h rem c inP 3 ud tin maD vi's case^(su ra ). It is, therefo re, not Dermrssib le for the ond ts ke h r d r ct2 L994 nd G. Ms. No.21 2. dated 22.4.1994 to denv requlariz ation to ron wh av fie he iteri aid wn tn .5 of th ud m nt in a Devi's case (suo a).

¶179

For the aforementioned reasons , order, dated 27 .6.201,7 in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set asid e and the writ oetition is allow edw ith the direc ron to the on n o ul rsa of serv eso IO e ts tn va tes w s or nd orn e su t etr trs th criteria laid downrn Para No.53 of the iudqment tn Um e ts oce us c lete wt n o on e te f cet ofa this order."

¶180

¶181

SN.] Np 3410()²⁰²²

¶182

The Division^{Benchofthis Curt} in it; ud oment d ted 1.o .2020 ass in I.A.Nos.1 f2^{2C n1} of 2O 19 and W.P.No^{.2305 7of 2O19repo rtedin 2O20} I zt)ALD Daqe 37 at ras 4 48 nd ra o rv a J lder:-

¶183

"45. There is no dispute^{that petitioners haveL t e.n working on} daity wage since^{1990and have put in almost rl30) years of} i".rji." uv now.^{They have beengiven minimum1 rne-scalefrom} ine^{year'ZOO0.They have been continuously r'crking without} any 6ourt orders^{in their favourfrom 1990 till d;t:'}

¶184

44, It is^{notknownwhv the} st res oor 1 lent^hasnot foll ed e tsto tn D ;r^(s u ora ). as exDlainedⁱ n^M.L.Ke rl s case^(s uora) an( L c-E-dslakcl-a DATIN the Iist⁽ f dail waqe one-ti mee^xerctseofo emotov ees who had^{workedfor more than.! qn (10) vears} witho ut the interve^{ntion ofthe courts} nd T 'i bu nals as on ificat nas ! t--!ss!s--4.!rd ): and if so

¶185

reqularize their^services.

¶186

Accordingly,^{the writ petitionis allowed; the impugned} orders dated^{ZO.g.ZOl'g passedby the 1st res;rrndentrejecting} trvices on onethe cases of^{petitionersfor regularization of;} time basis are^{declaredas illegal, arbitraryi} rrd vlolative of Articles L4, 16 and^{21 of the Constitutiorl} of India; the res ondents^{are direct} to re ularize on !!!qtime-^!aE!s e n rs' sfr h a h€-.pctllDnss com lete 1O vears^ofservt ond ailv vI roes from the initial dates^o fth^{etraoDorntment. But, th} !^{v'sall no} be dtoa net he le rcise shall be hin tw wee h :r ,- of receiot of copy of the order."

¶187

Tha Cou rn tha he s€ nt case the res ond e n s fail e fod h^{a roetheirdutv in examininq}

¶188

S N..i \o 31306 2022

¶189

¶190

the reoues of theDe t t oner for reoul a rization of Detitioner's servaces, whoi s workinq as Dart time Librarian and further to consider his request to treat the temDorarv service of the oetitioner in the last q rade oost of Dart time Librarian as reoular one for all ourooses bv ora ntinq last rade oav with oeri dical increment revised from time to time fro the dat of aoooi ntment of the oetitioner, rn accorda nce to law.

¶191

This Court oDrnes that Detitioner is entitled for con si deration ofoetitioner's case for qrant of the relief as Drav ed for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the o bservations of the A ex Cou tn vaflous iudo ents f erred and racted a VE n the v wofth Division Bench of thi s Court in the Judo ments referred to and tract bove.

¶192

Takinq into con si derat n: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

¶193

¶194

SN,J rvp_l'1106_2022

¶195

Assistant Government pleader for Services-I ;r rpearing on

¶196

behalf of the respondents.

¶197

c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted abovcr and again

¶198

enlisted below:

¶199

i)(2o2o) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) Scc Page 396 (iia) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2O13) 14scC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC t79t (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 Scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scC 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379

¶200

d) The Division Bench order of this (l )urt dated

¶201

10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7B2 of 2O1O rnd 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.tg of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

¶202

¶203

SN.J \ p_:1,{106 2022

¶204

e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2017 passed in W.p.No.2721-7 of 2OL7 (refetred to and extracted above),

¶205

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ol 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ol 2OLg (referred to and extracted above).

¶206

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

¶207

The Writ Petition ts allowed.t heD etiti ner as tre t u -fo h h lai of he eti ton for requla izat n DEtitio rn sJer esLan lsoth a rm of the petitioner to reat the tempora services of the Detiti o er in the last qra eDOst ofL i bra ria n as req ular one for all pur DOses by^qra ntinq last q radeoa v with Dertodical rncrementsr evised from time tot ame from the date of apoointment of the Detition er and all con se uentia I benefits, dulv enclosinq all the releva nt do um tsi s itio er a as ut- o tn the^prese ntwrat Detition uv ithin a Den odofon O1) week lr m a r cea of co of th rd r d e

¶208

SN.I \r'p.rd306_2022

¶209

re s Donden ts sha il examtne and co sider the same in accordance to law, in conformitv with prin,; ples of natural IUstice bv orovidino an oooortun tv of oer!i !.nAl trga-r1ngle the oetitioner, rn terms of orders oa ssed 2^g the^Supreme Cou in Uma Devi's case reoorted in 2OO6 ( 1) SCC Paqe 1, the i udome nt assed in W.P.No.24377 r'f 2OO7 dated o8.09.20 1O reoorted in 2O1 1 (1) ALD, P;r re 234 and as confirmed in W.A. No.782 of 2O1O dated l. 1.06.2O1 3, and also asper Division Bench Judqme ntoft tis Cou dated 19.09 .2OL7 oassed in W.P .No.272L7 of 2t) 7re orte 20L8(2)ALD paqe 2Az and also the Ii v Bench .Iudo ent of this Court dated 2L.O4.2C2 assed in I.A.No .1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O1 9 in W.P.No . 23057 f 2019 reoorted in 2O2O (4)ALD paqe 379 wh c t ha ttained finalitv, within a oeriod of four (O4) week! fleg_thejlatg of rec ipt of a coov of th rs order, drr v takinq into co nstderation t e observa tions and the ]a 1r laid down bv th ADex C ou rt tn th varto us iudoments 1.1 eferred to and extractedab ove ) and tn rta rf icu la r Dar a No.53 of the u men of eA ex u in the ca e of tate of Kar,na kav me DevI nd du co r LEs.lllcatc_lhe

SN.J wp 34306 2022

d ecision

e^petitione r. However, there shall be no

¶214

order as to costs.

¶215

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶216

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶217

To,

¶218

SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGIS-TRAR /c,-

¶219

//TRUE COPY/I

¶220

sEcTtoN 6rFrcen

¶221

One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTTCE SUREPALL| NANDA (For Her Lordship,s Kind perusal)

¶222

¶223

'1 1 L.R. Copies

¶224

The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶225

The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶226

4 Th_e Principal Secretary to Education Department Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad.

¶227

The Principal Secretary to Govt Finance and pranning Department secretariat , T.S.,Hyderabad.

¶228

1. The Director of Public Libraries, Govt of Telangana Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. 7. The Secretary, Ch_airman Ziila Grandhataya Sjmstna, Sulypiit, 6istriii .^- Telangana State. Suryapet,

¶229