Allowed

A.Venkatesh v. The State of Telangna

Telangana HC23 Jun 2025WP/35228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed by Public Health Workers seeking regularization of services based on the "Uma Devi" principle. The court held that the respondent's rejection was arbitrary as it contradicted earlier admissions of existing vacancies and failed to consider petitions despite statutory entitlement.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to consider and regularize the petitioners' services forthwith.

A.Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangna — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

-.,1:

¶3

rN rHE^{HrGH couRrfS$rtJk=^BITEoF TELANGANA}

¶4

(Special Original^{J urisdiction)}

¶5

MONDAY,^{THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF JUNE} - rU'lO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THEHoNoURABLEMRSJUSTICESUREPALLINANDA

¶8

WRIT PETI^TION OF 3

¶9

Between:

¶10

lA.Venkatesh,S/oMallaiah,aggd53years.(Allthepetitionersareworkingaspubtic Health workers on^{timJ"J"rUi)i dppi- Kalan circle,GHMC'} Hyderabad)

¶11

N.Bikshapathy,^{S/o Narasaiah,} ?geo^{about 53 years' (All the petitioners are} working as^{puo'iic"tiurlr..worr.3r"J ;;"h;- J;;tn UppalKalan circle'} '

¶12

GHMC,^HYderabad)

¶13

3tM.Ravi,S/oNarasimha'aged-.53years.(Allthepetrtionersareworkingaspublic Heatth workers^{on timl 'Jclte' ,n Uppat Kalan circle'GHMC'} Hyderabad)

¶14

4,P.Swamy,S/olstari,-agedabout52years(Allthepetitionersareworkingaspubtic Heatth Workeis on^{timJ'Jij; ;' Up;i- Kalan Circle' GHIVC'} Hyderabad)

¶15

5G.Jangaiah,S/oBalaiah,agedabout53years.(Allthepetitionersareworkingas Public Huritflm;k;;^{on t'ffi ;it} ' 'upp'i^'Katan circle' GHMC' il"vo"roio)

¶16

K.Ashok'^{S/o Yadaiah, aged about 53 years.(All the petitioners are working} as^{pubtic Health Workers on it.,\J""llii-in'' Upp'r '-Kalan Circle' GHMC'} Hyderabad)

¶17

7.D.Laxman,S/oAdivaiah'ageg53years.(Allthepetitionersare-workingasUtp;i-kalan^circle'GHMC' Public^{Health Workers on ti;;';;b'i;} HYderabad)

¶18

B.S.Yadamma,W/oLateLaxmaiah,agedalout5_6.years(Allthepetitionersareworking as^{public. Health worreiJ-ontime schte in'Uppat'Kalancircle'} GHMC' Hyderabad)

¶19

, E1 .,^^rc /a, fhr lrking^as

¶20

g. i.srn""tia, Wo^{pentaram,aged 57 years,(All the oetitionersare wc} pubtic Health Workers on^{ti#u"'.Lliu-'ii U-pp'T-kittnCircle'GHMC'} HYderabad)

¶21

l0.G.Siddilingam,S/oYadaiah,..agedabout5.lyears(AllthepetitionersarefuO-fiJ i;;lth^{Woit"r, on time} ="'r"^{ih Uppal KalanCircle'} working ".

¶22

11.M.Raju,S/oKondaiah,aged.53years.(Alltheoetitionersareworking.as public Heatth--Workers 6n^{t#"'?;i..in 'Upd'f - Kalan Circle' GHMC'} Hyderabad) are

¶23

¶24

1. B.Laxman,^{S/o Seetha Ramaiah, aged 52vears.} 'l"ur"^(All in UPPaI^{the Petitioners} Kalan^Ci rcle, AS Public^{HealthWorkers on time}

¶25

working GHMC,^Hyderabad) rs areare

¶26

vears.^{(All the} Petitioners areare

¶27

1. D.Jangaiah,^{S/o Rangaiah, agedabout 53} 'scale in UPPaI Kalan Circle, AS Public^{HealthWorkers on time}

¶28

working GH[NC,^Hyderabad)

¶29

14 Y.Andalu;^{Wo Ramulu,} agecl 5E^{years.(Al1 the petitionersare working as} Public Health^Workers on time^scate '"^{ijiilJ'kjitn circle' GHMC'} L!v-9st?P-q$.- .^{. .}

¶30

15.Y.Laxmi, Wo^{Mysaiah,aged about 57 years (All the oetitioners are working} as^pubtic Heatth^{worr;vrJ;"iiil;=ab-in'uppal'Kalan circle, GHMC'} Hyderabad)

¶31

G.Andalu, Wo^Shankaraiah, .aged^about -56^{years (All the petitioners are} 'Woii<ers on time scale iir Uppal Kalan Circle'

¶32

workinq as^{Public neatitt} GHMC; HYderabad)

¶33

17.Ch.tr/laraiah,s/oSailu,aged54years.(Allthepetitionersareworkingas pubtic Health workers^"xi- ti""1]"'!"liei'^{'in upprr Kalancircle, GHMC'} Hyderabad)

¶34

'lB.B.Yadaiah, S/o Bixapathi, aged about .g7^{y9?t-s (All the petitioners are} working as^{Public HealtnW"orkers on time scale in Uppal KalanCircle'} GHMC' Hyderabad)

¶35

rs^(All the^{petitionersare}

¶36

19.B.Maremma,^{Wo Bixapath, aged about SA} Y9? working as^{Public neltifr Wor"ketson time scale in Uppal KalanCircle'} GHMC, HYderabad)

¶37

20 A.Yadamma.^{W/o late Yadaiah,aged about57 years (All the petitioners are} workino as Public^{H";ii;-W;'k;son time si:ale in Uppal KalanCircle'} GHMC: HYderabad)

¶38

2'l .K.Lakshmi,^{Wo Naraimha, aged about.56y99IS (All the petitioners are} working as^{Public fferiin 'Wdtfetson time} - scale in Uppal Kalan Circle' GHMC, HYderabad)

¶39

N.Satvamma,^{Wo LateNarayana,.agedabout 57 vears(All the petitioners} " lr""iiLiri'"d:it'pruri. H"u*h'workeis on time scaie^{in Uppal Kalan circle'} GHMC, HYderabad)

¶40

M.Bixapathi,^{S/o M.Pochaiah, aged about56 years (All the petitionersare} '" ,i#liiff;. pi,6ril neirtn Worliers on time scale in Uppal^{Kalan circle'} GHMC, HYderabad)

¶41

24.R.Kishan,S/oSukru,agedabout54years.(All.theDetitionersareworkingas pubtic Heatth wo,x",l=if,"iii"J'J"rri- ti,^{uppdt rrun circle, GHMC.} Hyderabad)

¶42

25.M.Lalitha,W/oKishan,agedabout5Tyears'(Alltheoetitionersareworkingas^public Heatth^{work?vrl"#fi; J;b-in'uppar 'Kalan circle,GHMC,} Hyderabad)

¶43

26.B.Surekha, Wo^{Yadagiri,aged about} 96^{y9?t (All the oetitionersare} working as^{Public neitttr Worferson time scale 'in Uppai Kalan Circle'} GHMC, HYderabad)

¶44

27.A.Mutvalu,^{S/o Masaiah' aged about 55 years(All lhe oetitionersare working} '' ;."ilr;i; H".iin Wotriu?X"6"-il*i-i""rJ in'Uppal Kalan circle'^GHMC' Hyderabad)

¶45

23.R.Kamalamma,WoLateDurgaiah,agedabout60vears(Allthepetitioners ." :'J;#iil;'r! iirori" Hlartr"Wor(eri on time scale in Uipal Kalan circle, GHMC, HYderabad)

¶46

B.Lakshmi,^{WoMogulaiah,aged about..S5years (All the petitioners are} workinq as Public^{Health Wo'rkers on timescale in Uppal KalanCircle'} GHMC; Hyderabad)

¶47

...PET|rloNER(S)

¶48

AND

¶49

The State of^{Telangna,rep by its Principal.secretary'MA and UD}

¶50

Department,^{Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad'}

¶51

The State of^{Telangna, rep.byits Principal.secretary' Finance and Planning} - Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad'

¶52

The Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation' TankBund' Hyderabad'} rep.bY its Commissioner

¶53

{ Iit

¶54

4 The Deputv Commissioner,^{UppalKalan Cirde, Greater Hyderabad Municipal} Corporitioh,^Hyderabad.

¶55

...RESPONDENTS

¶56

tn the Petition^{UnderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthat} circumstances^{statedin the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased} to^{.issueWrit Orderor Direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of} relating to^{thePr'ocd'No'e-} tt/landamus^{bycatling for therecords} 324O2otB3/Lws/G^{H M C120231290} '^{dt.101812023issued bY the 3rd resPondentand} set aside^{the samebY declaring asillegat, arbitrary and voilativeof the principles of} natural^{justice and also contrary tothe facts as admitted in counteraffidavit in WP} No.817gt2}17^{and consequentlYdirect the respondentsto regularize the servtces} of the^{petitioners in terms of lawlaid down by the Honourble SupremeCourt in} rn 2006^{(4) SCC 1 as followed by this Honourable} Uma Devi's^CaseRePorted Court^{in WP No.2721712017, dt. 1 glgl2l17Reported in 2018(2) ALD 282 from the} dateofcompletionofl0yearswithaltattendantbenefits.

¶57

I.A.NO:1^{OF 2023}

¶58

petition Under section^{151 Cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the respondents^{to considerthe craim of the petitionerfor regurarization of their} services^{in terms of law laid down by the Ho'ble Supremecourt in uma Devi s case} Reportedin2006(4)SCclasfollowedbythisHonourableCourtinWP No.27217t2o17dt.1glgl2o17Reportedin201B(2)ALD2B2severalcaseswithout reference^{to impugned order dt. 1}t8t2o23 ' pending final disposalof the writ} petition.

¶59

Counsel^{for the Petitioners : SRI P'RAGHAVENDRA REDDY}

¶60

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN} DEVELOPMENT

¶61

CounselfortheRespondentNo'2:G'PFORFINANCEANDPLANNING

¶62

CounselfortheRespondentNos.3&4:SRIG.NARAYANA,ScFoRSERVICE MATTERS^{OF GdT4-iAND AGRICUfrURALMARKET COMMITTEE}

¶63

The Court^{made the following ORDER}

¶64

¶65

SN, J wP_35228 2023

¶66

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶67

ORDER:

¶68

Heard sri^p. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for MA& UD appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government pleader for Finance and planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri G. Narayana, learned standing counsel for service Matters of GHMC and Agricultural Market committee, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶69

¶70

praver as under:

¶71

"-..to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the procd.No.e-324020/8.3/Lws/3HMC/2023/ 290, dt.10-8-2023 issued by the 3d respondent and set aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the facts as admitted in counter affidavit in wp No.B179l2017 and consequenuy direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of law laid

¶72

¶73

Sr"t. J wP 15228 202:l

¶74

down by the Honourble Supreme Court^{in Uma Devi's Case} Reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 as followed by this^Honourable Court in WP No.272t7/2OL7, dt. l9-9-2O17^Reportedin 2018 (2) ALD 282 from the date of^{completionof 10 years} with all attendant benefits and^pass...".

¶75

¶76

The respondents are not^{regularizingthe servicesof the} petitioners from the Clate of completion of^{10 yearsof servicein} spite ol' repeated request made by^{the petitioners.The} petitioners relied on para No.4 of the counter^{affidavit filed by} the respondent Nos.3 & 4 in^{W.P. No.B179of 2077 wherein it} was specifically admitted that^{there are existing vacanciesin} Uppal Kalan Circle.^{But the 3t"d respondent has issued the} impugned^proceedings dated^{10.08.2023rejecting the claim of} the petitioners on the^{ground that there are no existing} vacancies to consider the^{claim of the petitioners for} regularization. Aggrieved by^{the proceedingsdated10.08.2023} issued by the 3|.d^{respondent,the petitionersapproachedthe} Court by filing the^{present writ petition.}

¶77

4. PERUSED THE RECORD

SN, J wP 35228 2021

(A)

3td resoondent is extracted he under:

¶82

.PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMTSSIONER, GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PRESENT: SRI D. RONALD ROSE., I.A.S., coMMrssroNER, HGMC.

¶83

Proc.No. e-324O2O / B3l LWS/GHMC/2O23129O, dated 10.08.2023

¶84

Sub: Estt.GHMC - Labour Welfare section - Sri D. Raju & (39) others NMRs., Circle No.02, Uppal, GHMC - Requested to implement the orders dt.13.01.2023 in W.P. No. 8179 of 2017 - Examined - No existing vacancies - Rejected - Order Issued .

¶85

Ref:- ( 1) Orders dr .13.01.2023 in Wp No.8179 of 2017 of the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad.

¶86

(2) Representation dated 16.02.2023.

¶87

(3) Remarks of the Deputy Commissioner, circle No.02, Uppal GHMC. ***

¶88

ORDER

¶89

. In the reference 2"d cited, Sri D Raju & (39) others, pH workers, Uppal Circle, GHMC have requested to regularize their servlce as per the Orders dt. 13.01.2023 in Wp No.8179 of 2Ot7 of the Hon,ble High Court and in terms of law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Courtrin Umadevi's case. . Sri D Raju & (39) others were working on NMR/dally wages in the erstwhile Uppal Kalan Municipality. Subsequently Uppal kalan Municipality was merged in Municipal Corporation of ityderabad, Further, the petitioners have filed OA. No.3902/1995, OANO 3905/1995, dt:31.07.1995 and OA No.6826/96 dt..Z2.O4.Lgg7 before the Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal for regularization of services in terms of G.O.Ms. No 212, dti 24.04.t994. Accordingly, the erstwhile Uppal Municipality has extended the benefit of minimum time scale vide Proc. No.2212/95-8, dt:19.03.1996, proc. No.8/3674/96, dt: 20.08.L997, Proc No.B/1410/98; dt :08.08.1998 & proc. No. BlL470/98, dt: 26.09.1998 of the Commtssioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality and thereafter as per the orders of APAT vide OA No. 7595/2005 d. 15.09.2006, granted annual grade increments vide proc. No. CUt278/2005, dt. 22.Ot.2007 of the Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality, RR Dist as per approvar of the commissioner ti Director,

¶90

¶91

SN, J wP i5228 2021

¶92

Municipal Administration Departfilent vide Lr.Roc.No.20969/2006M3,dt. 19.12.2006:

¶93

Further, Sri D Raju &^{(39) othershave filed WP No.8179of} 2017 before the Hon'ble High^{Courtof Telanganafor regularization of} their services in terms of the^{orderspassed by this Hon'ble Court in WP} No.24377/2OO7 as confirmed^{in the WA No.782l2010. Accordingly,the} Hon'ble High Court has disposed^{off the Writ Petitionon dt. 30.01.2023} and operative^portion of the^{order as follows:}

¶94

"The writ^petition is^{disposed of directingthe respondent} authorities to consider the^{case of petitioners in lightof orders passed} by the Hon'ble Supreme^{Court in State of KarnatakaV. Umadeviand} oihers (cited 1 supra); and^{Division Bench of this Court passedin WP} No. 27217 of 20L7, dated^{19.09.2017and pass appropriateorders} strictly in accordance with^{law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably,} within a period of eight^{(08)weeks from the date of receipt of copy of} this order and communicate^{the same to the petitioners.}

¶95

As per the direction of the^{Hon'bleApex Court in Stateof} Karnakata Vs. Uma Devi^{read at para No-53 as follows:}

¶96

"The object behind the said direction^{in para 53 of Umadeviis} two-fold. First is to ensure^{that thosewho have put in more thanten} years of continuous service without the^{protection of any interim} orders of courts or tribunals,^{beforethe date of decision in Umadevi} was rendered, are considered^{for regularization in view of their long} service. second is to ensure^{that the departments/instrumenta lities do} not perpetuate the^practice of^{employing persons on daily wage/ad-} hoc/casual for long^{periods and thenperiodicallyregularizethem on} the ground that they^{have served for more than ten years,thereby} defeiting the constitutional or^{statutoryprovisions relatingto} recruitm-ent and appointment.^{The trueeffect of the directionis that all} persons who have worked for more^{than ten years as on 10'4'2006} itne^{Oute of decision in Umadevi)without the protectionof anyinterim} order of any court^{or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessingthe requisite} qualification, are entitled to be considered^{for regularization' The fact} t.hattheemployerhasnotundertakensuchexerciseofregularization within six months^{of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was} undertakenonlyinregardtoalimitedfew,willnotdisentitlesuch employees, the right^{to be consideredfor regularizationin terms of the} above directions in^{Umadevi as a one-time measure.''}

¶97

As per the orders^{of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin Secretary,} StateofKarnatakaandothersV.UmadeviandothersthattheState Governments were^permitted as^{a one timemeasure to consider} regularization of services of irregularly^{appointed persons whohave}

¶98

¶99

SN. J \,P 15228 2023

¶100

worked for 10 years against duly sanctioned vacant posts without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization,

¶101

In the instant case there are no such existing vacancies and the Petitioners were worked on daily wage basis. They were not appointed against any sanctioned/vacancy posts. They were continued on the strength of Tribunal orders and paid salaries in the time scale and granted in crements/other benefits as per the directions of APAT from time to time. Hence, as per the paragraph No.53 of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex-Court in State of Karnakata Vs: Uma Devl, Sri D Raju & (39) others are not entitled for regularization of their services. As there are no existing vacancies.

¶102

In the judgment of the Hon,ble High Court in Wp.No. 27217/2017, dt:19.09.2017 as per para No-18 it is held that ', For the aforementioned reason, order, dated:27.06.2017, in O.A No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the Writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners

¶103

This process must be completed within two m onths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order", Further in present case the circum stances are different from the issue mentioned in W.p No.272t7/2017.

¶104

Commissioner, GHMC To Sri D. Raju & (39) others, who are filed in W.P. No. 8179 of 2Ot7 (through the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.02, Uppal, cHMC).

¶105

¶106

SN, J wP :i5228 2021

¶107

(B) The order of this Court ated 3O.O1.2O23 oassed

¶108

in W.P. No. 8179 ot 2OL7 in oarticular oara Nos.4 and 5 r

¶109

"4. In view of the submission made by both the learned counsel. this writ^petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of^{petitioners in} the light of orders^passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtⁱⁿ State of Karnataka V. Umadevi and others^(cited l't supra); and Division Bench of this Court^passed in^WP No.27217 of 2017, dated 19.09.2017 and^pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously^as possible. preferably, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners.

¶110

Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any^pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs".

¶111

(c)

¶112

"...The^judgment rendered in Umadevi case^{further was} explained in State of Karanataka v. L.^{Kesar(supra),} wherein it is stated that the true effect of the direction^at paragraph 53 of judgment in Umadevi case is that all persons who have worked for more than 10 years as on 10.4.2006 without the^protection of any^{interim order of} any Court or Tribunal, in vacant^{posts, possessing the} requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered^for regularization.

SN. J \,P 15228 2023

(D)

"The learned Single Judge in his elaborate judgment discussed applicability or otherwise of the decisions of the Apex Court and other High Courts referred to therein and relying on the decisions of the Apex Court applicable to the facts oithe present case, rightly arrived at the conclusion and allowed the Writ Petitions. In the process, the learned Judge held that Manjua Bhasini's case (supra), on which the appellants have placed reliance, has no application to the facts of the present cases inasmuch as regularization of the services in the said case were in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22.4.1994 and its applicability from a particular date. Even the reliance placed by the appellant in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Man Singh {(2012) 1 SCC 558}, has atso no appticarion to the facts of the present cases inasmuch as the respondents- employee therein have merely put in 240 days only unlike the case of the respondents herein. Further, the provisions of the Act 2 of 1994 have also no application inasmuch as the respondents were reinstated through the award of the Labour Court which ultimately attained finJtity. tt is also noteworthy to state that even after the Act 2 of 1994 came into force, the appellant-ApSRTC regularized the services of the temporary employees/labour either in term of its own circulars/orders or by way of Courts orders.

¶117

Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached

¶118

¶119

SN, J wP 35228 202.1

¶120

the law Courts were regularized.^{The appellant-Corporation} also issued various office orders/circu lars^dated 20.12.t9A9, 11.09.1992,, 06.10.2007 and^{latest being} 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract^employeesJt

¶121

in these aooeals.

¶122

Viewed thus, we do not find any merit^{in these appeals and} the same are liable to^be dismissed.

¶123

Accordingly the Writ Appeals are^{dismissed.As a sequel,} the miscellaneous^{petitionspending considerationif anyshall} stand dismissed. There shall be^{no order as to costs".}

¶124

(E)

¶125

"5. It is to state that^{the applicantand 28 others were} appointed initially as^{NMRS in betweenyears1989 to 1992} and since they have^{not completedfive years of serviceas} on 25.11.1993 which is the cut^{off datespecifically} mentioned in G.O. Ms.^{No. 212 Dtt 22.04.t994and as such} they are not entitled^{for regularizationof their service.Sri.} D. Raju & 39 others were working^{as NMR/daily wages in} the erstwhile Uppal Municipality.^{Subsequently,Uppal} Kalan Municipality was merged in^{Municipal Corporationof} Hyderabad. Further, the^{petitioners have filed O.A. NO'}

¶126

¶127

wp-rszza-?|ii

¶128

3902/1995, OA NO: 3905/1995 Dt: 31.07.1995 and OA NO: 6826196 Dtl.22.O4.1997 before the Hon,ble Ap Administrative Tribunal for regularization of services in terms of G.O. Ms. No: 212 Dt: 24.04.1994. Accordingly, the erstwhile Uppal Municipality has extended the benefii of minimum time scale vide proc. N: 2212/95-8 Dt: 19.03.1996, Proc. No: 8/3674/96 Dt: 20.08.1997., proc. No. 8/1410/98 Dt: 08.08.1998 & proc. No. 8/1410/98 Dr: 26.09.1998 of the Commissioner, Uppat Kalan Municipality and thereafter as per the orders of the APAT vide OA No. 7595/2005 Dt: 15.09.2006 granted annual grade increments vide Proc. No. CttZTB/2005 Dt: 22.OL.2007 of the Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality, RR Dist. as per approval of the Commissioner & Director, Municipal Administration Dept., vide Lr. Roc. No.20969/2006-M3 Dt: t9.t2.2006.

¶129

¶130

a) The subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court dated 08.09.2010 passed in W,P. No.24377 of Z0O7 and C.C. No. 48 of 2OOB in Kodali

SN, J wP 15228:t023

2 A

b) On an earlier occasion, the^{petitionershad approached the} Court questioning the action of the^{respondentsinnot} regularizing the services of the^{petitionersfrom the date of} completion of 10^years of service.^{This Court disposedof the} said W.P. No.B179 of 2Ol7 on 30.01.2023^directingthe respondents to consider the regularization^{of servicesof the} petitioners subject to the satisfaction of criteria as^{laid down in} Para No.53 of the Judgment in Uma Devi's^{case (cited supra) and} further the entire^processwas directed^{to be completedwithin} elght (B) weeks from the date of^{receipt of a copy of this order.} c) In spite of the specific^{directions of this Court dated} 30.01.2023^passed in W.P.^No.8179 of^{20L7 and in spite of a} clear admission in the counter affidavit^{filed on behalfof} respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the said^{Writ PetitionNo.B179of 2017} at para No.5 that there are^{last grade vacanciesin the} Corporation but the^request of^{the petitloners herein had been} rejected solely on the^{ground that there are no existing} vacancies and that the^petitioners had^{workedon daily wage}

¶137

¶138

SN, J wP 35228 2023

¶139

basis and further that petitioners are not appointed against any sa nctioned/vacancy posts.

¶140

d) The aforesaid pleas are pleas which are raised only to deny petitioners legal entitlement and the same are not valid in the eye of law.

¶141

¶142

Learned Standing Counsel for Service Matters of GHMC and Agricultural Market Committee, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, placing reliance on the averments made at para Nos.5 and 9 of the counter affidavit fired on beharf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present writ petition (referred to and extracted above) contends that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

¶143

A bare perusal of the record indicates that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.p. No.B179 of 2017 fired by the petitioners on an earrier occasion seeking regularization of their services, there is a crear admission

)

SN. J wP 35228 202.]

that there are last^{grade vacanciesin the Corporation' A bare} perusal of the record and also the^{lmpugned proceedings,dated} 10.08.2023 issued by^{the 3'd respondent indicatesthat the} request clf the^{petltioners had been rejectedmechanically.} unilaterally in a^{very routine casual mannerwithout examining} the case of the^{petitioners for regularization as per the} petitioners' request, duly^{examining all the requireddocuments} in support of the^{petitioners' case holding that there are no} existingvacanciesandhencethepetitionersarenotentitledto claim for regularization^{of services.The counter affidavit filed by} the respondent^{Nos.3 and 4 in the presentW'P' No' 35228 of} ZO23 does not^{indicateaplea pertaining to rejectionof} petitioners' case on the^{ground that there are no existing} vacancies. But^{however, curiou$ly several otlrer pleas are put} forth stating that^{there are no such cadrestrength and that the} petitioners worked on daily^{basis but not appointedthrough} sanctioned^{posts and furtherthbt they werecontinuedas per} principles laid down by^{the Apex Court in}

¶149

This Court opines^{that 3'd respondent admittedly} neither apptied its^{mind to the facts of the case nor}

¶150

¶151

SN, J wP^ji22ti 202i

¶152

looked into the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P. No.8179 of 2OL7 and raised several other pleas in the counter affidavit for not considering the cases of the petitioners for regularization. The said pleas curiously do not reflect in the order impugned vide Procd. No.e-324O2O/B3/ LWS/ HGMC/ 2023129O, dated 1O.08.2023 and the plea that are no existing vacancies however, is taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present W.p. No.35228 of 2O23. Therefore, this Court opines that the subject issue needs to be considered afresh by the 3'd respondent herein duly taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court in the various Judgments given below pertaining to regularization of services of the petitioners herein.

¶153

9 ln

¶154

¶155

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their

¶156

¶157

SN, J wP 35228 2023

¶158

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 continuedⁱⁿ service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entltled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular establishment and the services rendered bv^them t h d w rk-cha e establishment shall be cou nted as oualifvino service for ouroose of oension."

¶159

The Aoex Co rt in the case of "Dharwad District^PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Associatio n Vs. State of Ka rnata reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid rinci tes k a ers temoorarv or ad hoc service for lono^period and^{have to} treat such Derson s as reoular one.

¶160

Para No.53 of the of the Judomentof theAoex^Court in the "S te of Karnataka and others Vs. Umad i". dated 10.04.2006 reoorted in⁽² o6)4sCC1ise xtracted

hereunder: -

SN, J wP 35228 2023

"53 o e asDect need to be clarifi There mav cases where irregular appointments (not allegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa f1967 (1) SCR 1281, R.N. Na niunda oDa r1972 (1) SCC 4O9I and B.N. Naoa raian f 1979 (4) SCC sO I and referred to in ra 15 v Itat<ts mi.!ht hr vaha an marla :nd lha arnnlar;aa h conti ued to work for ten rs or fno but without the intervention of orders of t courts or of tribunal . The I above referred and in the lioht of is Judoment. In t h Un rnm and eir instrumentalities should take DS tO reo larize e-tim su rv! h larl n w av w for r n san ioned rofo but not n under cover t of alders th e reoul r recruitm nts are un ertaken to fill those vacant m tn nwa stx months fro m this date.....

¶165

L2. The J udqment f the Aoe Court dated 2().12. o24, reDo ed in 2024 Law Suit(sc) 1 O9 in "J qqo An and others v. Union of India and others", and the relevan t ra r os.12 2 2 8

¶166

hereu nder:

¶167

'12. Despite being labelled as^..part-time workers," the appellants performed these essentaal tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. fheir engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsi bilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did

¶168

¶169

SN. J \jP 15228 2023

¶170

not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶171

Th e claim bv the non.l6nt( that thesG were not reoular^posts lacks merit, as the nature of the worl< oerformed bv the aooellants was oerennia! and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the 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.

¶172

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 t e iudiciarv's role in re fvino such misclassifications and ensurino that^workers receive fair treatment.

¶173

While the^judgment in Uma Devi^{(supra) sought} to curtail the^practice of backdoor^{entriesand ensure} appointments adhered to constitutional^{principles, it is} regrettable that its^principles are^{often misinterpreted}

¶174

¶175

SN, J wP 35228 2023

¶176

or misapplied to deny |egitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It cateooricallv held that emolovees in irregutar ADDOI ntments, who were nqaqed in dulv sanctioned oosts a nd had serv d continuou slv for more than ten v rs should be conside for reoularization as a one-t ime m asure; However. the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoolication distorts the judgment,s spirit and ouroose, effectivelv weaponizino it aoainst emoloyees who have rendered indispensabte services over decades.

¶177

27, In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government anstitutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principtes of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contrabuting to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶178

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:

¶179

¶180

SN. .I wP_35228_202i

¶181

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

¶182

ii. back on duty forthwith and their servic$ reoularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any oecuniary b-enefits/back waoes for the oeriod they have not worked for^bu[ would be entitled to continuitY of services for the said neriod and the sanre rarorrlrl he cou fnr f heir noqtretiral benefits."

¶183

¶184

¶185

para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunderi

¶186

'15. It is manifest that the Appellant^Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over^{several years.} sometimes soanning rnore than a decade.^{Even if certain} muster rolls were not^produced in full, the^Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to^do so-allows an adverse inference under^{well-established}

¶187

cannot be dismissed summarily as^dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor aqreement. At this^juncture, it would^{be appropriate to recall}

¶188

¶189

SN, J wP l522lt 2023

¶190

the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo

¶191

v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:

¶192

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

¶193

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

¶194

3 lsuse of "Tc Dorarv" Labels: Em

¶195

¶196

. 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

¶197

¶198

SN. J wP 35228 2023

¶199

employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

¶200

. Using outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited worl<ers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

¶201

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such^as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of^social security subjects them and their famllies to undue hardshlp, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.^"

¶202

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^HighCourt 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^{violationevidenton} record.

¶203

L7. In light of these considerations, the^Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands^{in violation of} the most basic labour law^principles. Once it is established^that their services were terminated without adhering^{to Sections 6E} and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,^{1947, and that thev}

SN, J wP 35228 2023

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellanl Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes. including seniority and continuity in service.

¶208

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judg ment.

¶209

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 theii actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.

SN. J wP 35228 2023

tar. cr rah dr rliac aru icf j6^ttir6A ilra

¶214

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."

¶215

¶216

¶217

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

¶218

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned^posts, if appointed after

¶219

¶220

wP,3522s s2t i

¶221

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.

¶222

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

15:

u nder:

tn on 10.4 .2006 in 2006 rul 7). In that case. a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the

¶227

¶228

S.- J wP 35228 202i

¶229

constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be.careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumenta lities, 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 Constituticn. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

¶230

"5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general^principles against^' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned^post without the benefit or^protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the

¶231

¶232

SN, J wP 35228 2023

¶233

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

¶234

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

¶235

The term^'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of 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.

¶236

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the onetime regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of^para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be

¶237

¶238

SN". J wP -15228 2023

¶239

considered for regula rization.. merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should considcr all dailywage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 y.ears of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Untadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should considcr their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The orte time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in tenns of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

¶240

Dractice of emolovino on dzilw-waoe/ad-

¶241

rnf-Law\

¶242

These appeals have been pending for more than four^years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appellant^(Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents^of

¶243

¶244

SN, J wP 35228 20211

¶245

regularization within six months of the decision in llmadevi or thereafter-

¶246

1O. 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/casua l/ad -hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of umadevi. If they fulfilt 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 fulfi 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 appointmenL they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeat is disposed of accordingly.

¶247

¶248

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

¶249

¶250

sN, l wP 15228 202i

¶251

control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadr€ but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to it it m tik decades. It h ld that "sanctioned oosts d not fall from it nC naad D -r:F^ +^ r !aszlarri area if lralzl fl.rl *ha I I :t rn n n n

¶252

¶253

SN, J wP_35228_2023

¶254

bv the state. rt was held that the Judoment in umadevi Gfrta rnrl ilc inef rrrrrranf =lifiac rnd nailhar lha

¶255

t7. The Judqment of the Aoex court reoorted in 2o15 ll

¶256

¶257

paras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶258

(7) G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.o. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appeltants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶259

B. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.o. on the ground that the appeltants 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 appettants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their iive year continuous service as was laid down by this court in District C_ollector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (S) SCC 4BO.

¶260

¶261

SN. J u,P i522ti 202-i

¶262

SCC 265. the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exceptiou carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are rt irregular but not illegal, and tn r V

¶263

f 1at1 4 l7 caa aaa cirnilr rriarer rrrra r-rlzaa lrrr +}ra

¶264

¶265

SN, J wP 3522A 2023

¶266

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.t2.2O22 passed in W.P. No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertains to regularazation of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda Distract, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶267

21, TEl :il la ir Trust V State of Maharash a and n ers" rl

¶268

"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 manda mus, but

¶269

In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.,,

¶270

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment

¶271

dated 1O.O6.2013 passed in W.A. Nos.7B2 of 2O1O and 854 ol 2Ot2 while upholding the Judgment dated O8.09.2O10

¶272

¶273

SN,.I wP i5228 2021

¶274

passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.4B of 2008

¶275

observed as under:-

¶276

"Further, it is manifest from the material on record that tlre services of the similarly placed^persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also^issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.L2.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 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 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents^are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as^the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matterⁱⁿ detail, in the pi-oper perspective, which, in our considered^view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

¶277

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.27217 of^2Ot7

¶278

reported in 2O18(2)ALD page 282 at^para 16 and^{para 18}

¶279

observed as under:-

¶280

'16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court^is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of^the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the^{time the} judgment in lJma 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^{regularizationand absorption of f} persons, who entered service through back doors by^givinga go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments^to one-time public posts, consciously ordered for absorption /regularization of those, who^{were workingfor a} period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of^India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various^State

¶281

¶282

SN, J wP 15228 2023

¶283

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 tJma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the judgment in Irlanjyla Bashini's case (supra), does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have. admittedly. satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in LJma Devi's case (supra ).

¶284

For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2Ot4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in LJma Devi,s case (supra). This process must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.,,

¶285

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment

¶286

dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019

¶287

and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD page

¶288

379 at paras 45, 48 and para SO observed as under:-

¶289

"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 the year 2O00. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

¶290

It is not known why the 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi,s case (supra), as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts

¶291

¶292

SN..I wP i5228 2021

¶293

and Tribunals as on LO.4.2006'and subject them to^{a process} verification as to whether they are working against^{vacant posts} and possess requisite^{qualifications} for the^{posts, and if so,} regularize their services.

¶294

Accordingly, the writ^petitiorr 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 hasis are declared as illegal,^{arbitraryand violativeof} Articles 14, 16 and 2L of the Constitution^{of India;the} respondents are directed to regularize^{on one-timebasis} petitioners' services ft-om the date each of the^petitioners complete 1.0 years of service on daily^{wages from the initial} dates of their appointment. But, they 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."

¶295

In the counter affidavit filed bv the resoondent^Nos.3 and 4 in .P. No.8t79 ot 2A 7 filed bv Sri^D. iu and 39 others. the resoondents 3 and 4 soecificallv^averrgdat Dara No.s as under:

¶296

"5. It is-submitted that no doubt they^{are last grade} vacancies in the Corporation^{but when the petitioners} have not put in 5^years of service^{as such they are not} eligible for regularization of^{their services in the existing} vacancies. This aspect is also considered^{by the Supreme} Court in Manjula Bashini's^{casewhere the Hon'ble Supreme} court also considered all the^{aspectsand observed thata} person wlro completes five^years of service^{by 25.11.1993} alone for regularization".

¶297

This Court opines that the^{specific plea put forth by the} respondent No.3 in rejecting the^{petitionerscase on the ground}

¶298

¶299

sN. .l wP 35228 2021

¶300

that there are no existing vacancies is contrary to the averments made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.p. No.B179 of 2Ol7 referred to and extracted above and hence the said plea is rejected as u ntena b le.

¶301

27, This Court opines that all the pleas put forth in the proceedings impugned procd. No.e-324O20/ 83/ LWS/ GHMC. 2O23/29O, dated 10.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 had in fact been considered in the various Judgments (referred to and extracted above) and held to be untenable and rejected. This Court opines that the respondent No.3 cannot reject petitioners request for regularization of petitioners services contrary to the observation oF this Court in its Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.p. No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C. No.48 of 2008 reported in 2011 (1) ALD page 234, (referred to and extracted above) which had in fact been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A. No.7B2 of 2010 (referred to and extracted above).

¶302

2A. This Court opines that all the pleas put forth by the respondent No.3 in the order impugned dated 10.08.2023 enlisted hereunder had in fact been considered in the aforesaid

¶303

¶304

SN. J wP 15228 2023

¶305

Judgments. This Court opines that the specific^{reasonsindicated} in the order impugned dated 10.08.2023^passed by^the

¶306

respondent No.3 are entitled hereunder.

¶307

(i) There are no existing vacancies (ii) Petitioners worked on daily wage basis.

¶308

(iii) Petitioners were not appointed against any sanctioned/vacancy^post.

¶309

This Court opines that the aforesaid^{reasons indicatedin} the order impugned^passed by the^{respondent No.3are intended} only to deny the benefit oF regularization of^{petitiorlersservices} and the said^pleas are totally contrary^{to the observations of} Apex Court and this Court in the^{various judgments (referred to} and extracted above). Though at^{para No3 of the counter} affidavit filed by the respondent^{Nos. 3 and 4 in the presentwrit} petition it is stated that the petitioners have not^{completed five} year of service as on 25.11.1993 which is the cut off^date specifically mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212,^{dated 22.04.L994 and} as such the^petitioners are not^{entitled for regularization of} petitioners service. The said pleas however, are^{not reflected in} the order impugned dated 10.08.2023^{passedby the respondent} No.3 and the said^pleas are also^held to^{be untenable in view of}

¶310

¶311

SN, J wP 35228 202i

¶312

the observations at para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi.s case.

¶313

This Court oo nes that resoonde t No.3 nnot r r:l

¶314

bv iI.FI'I TN t No-3 as held the A Court i the h rn

¶315

*a. The nd eo allv relevant matter is that r affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, l. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr.^{of Police,Bombay} v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 10BB : AIR 1952 SC 161 :

¶316

¶317

SN. J wP l5l2lr 2023

¶318

"Public orders,^publlcly made, in exercise of^a statutory authority cannot be construed in^the light of explanations subsequently^given by^the officer making the order of^{what he meant, or of} what was in his mind, or what he intended to^do. Public orders nrade by^public authorities^are meant to have^public effect and are^intendedto affect the actings and conduct of^{those to whom} they are addressed and must be^construed objectively with reference to the^{language used} in the order itself."

¶319

Orders are not like old wine^becomtno better as thev^qrow older."

¶320

urt hat i rese e th resoon ents failed to discharoe th^{ir dutv in exa} mininq the reouest of the oetitioners f^{orreqularization of} e who a rkin nNM basis and to treat the temDorar^{v servtces} the waqe oetiti ners in the last^{qradeDost as reqular onefor all} r nti r w eriod i incre ent revise from time to time from the^dateof ADDO ntment of the oetitio^{ers, ln a} rdance to law.

¶321

This Court ooines^{that Detationersare entitled for} cons deration Detitioners' case for orant of the reli^{ef as} r h to vt o rv xC n varl n

¶322

¶323

S^'. J wP .15228 2021

¶324

(re rred to and extra above) and the vaew of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judqments referred to and xtracted a bove

¶325

This Court o ines tha the reo est of the Detitio ners for reou la rization of oetit oners' serwic s cannot be rele ed on e orou d that there a noe xistino va ncies a dont e^qroun d that etitaoners had not com Dleted minimu m period of 5 vears as on 25.1 1.1993. rnce r th ifi s ne t e h n ln e1 1 onw and hence all the itioners adm dlv had worked for ore t r s o 6 h ition h a n r nsi ron tion r z of on ervr as rtheo bservations of E ADex Court in the case of Sta of Pu ta b and Others Vs. Jaoiit Sinoh and oth rin particular at oara No.54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2) and (3r r o ti n in the various judqments of the Aoex Court(referred to a e e h tsr en d m t u d A

¶326

¶327

SN, J wP 35228 2023

¶328

2ofL994 and G.O.M s.No.212,^dat d^22.O4.L99 4 do not whittle down the w dth and the^iudomentin Maniula hini's s w r the r cto h di rections issued bv he Suoreme urt in Dara o.53 of its iu oment in ma Devi's case.

¶329

Takin o into nsideratio n:(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances^{of the}

¶330

case,

¶331

(b) The submissions made by the^{learned counsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitioners and the learned} Standing Counsel appearing^{on behalf of the respondent} Nos.3 & 4,

¶332

(c) The averments made in the counter^affidavit filed on behalf of the^{respondentNos.3 and 4 in the} present writ petition in^{particular, para nos.5 and 9} (referred to and extracted above)

¶333

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

¶334

(i) (2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144

¶335

1+J

¶336

SN, J wP_35228_2023

¶337

(iv) 2o24 Law Suit(SC) 1209 (v) (2fJ17) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(e) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC t7gt (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 SCc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supr:eme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD pag e 282 (xvi) 2O20(4)ALD pag e 319 (xv) !978 (1) SCC 4Os

¶338

(e) The Division Bench order of this court dated 10.06.2013 passed in w.A.Nos.7B2 of 2o1o and 954 of 2oL2 while uploading the Judgment dated og.o9.2010 passed in w.P.No.2437z of 2oo7 and c.c.No.4g of 2oog (referred to and extracted above),

¶339

(f) The Division Bench order of this court dated 19.09.2017 passed in w.p.No.2z2Lt of zoLT (referred to and extracted above),

¶340

(g) The Division Bench order of this court dated 21.o4.2o2o passed in r.A.Nos.l of zo2o in 1 of 2019 and w.P.No.23(J57 of 2o19 (referred to and extracted above).

¶341

I (

¶342

¶343

SN, J wP 35221t 2023.

¶344

(h) Tlre discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos,S to 35 of the present order.

¶345

The Writ on is allowed and t c tm rru o ned rd t

¶346

o lt n n ! 2 n :l I 2 2 t l

(

SN, J wP_35228_2021

de des of ra for the oonde Muni oal ln -,1 n

¶352

¶353

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶354

'-s"-

¶355

//TRUE COPY//

¶356

REKHA RANI ASSISTANT -sol-e. REGISTRAR o

¶357

SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON'BLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLINANDA} (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

¶358

¶359

The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, MA and UD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶360

The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning^Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶361

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund,} Hyderabad.

¶362

The Deputy Commissioner, Uppal^Kalan Cirde,^{Greater Hyderabad Municipal} Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶363

11^{L.R. Copies.} r^_. , r-r^^ nr rnr r, Justice^{and Company} 6. The^{Under Secretary, Union of lndia'Ministry of Laui}

¶364

, t[3'3;]ili:[iungrnu^{Advocates AssociationLibrary' Hish court}

¶365

,. ?il'lt5E:,:'jF'EBf^{y g PL} t?y^{N AN D uRBlf!-P.EVELoPT/rENr' High} Court^{for the Staie of Telanganaat Hvderabad' [OUTI}

¶366

e rwo^{ccs to Gf;b"i iiNArfuE.fririi?iArrrNrr.rc,Hidr, courtror the state or} r' i"rr*i., at HYderabaO t9-l]J]-

¶367

1 0. o ne cc^{to s R l''p"H;6TfiVENrinn nr o DY,.A$ yo-cateIO P U C l} 11 one cc^{to sni b nnirivaIrygEF6[stHvrcErrrintrERs-oFGHMC} AN D AG^{RI C U iiu ilAi TViAilKtf 6OMI'}I ITET'RdUO"AIC(O P U C )}

¶368