Allowed

Jakki Yadaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Aug 2025WP/38875/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contingent sweeper sought regularisation from initial appointment, parity of wages with regular last grade employees, and retirement benefits. The Single Judge, relying on Umadevi and later Supreme Court decisions and prior Division Bench orders, allowed the writ petition directing respondents to examine and consider his claim within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to receive petitioner's representation, examine and decide his claim for regularisation and consequential benefits in accordance with law within four weeks after personal hearing.

Jakki Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132s21

¶2

rN rHE^{H.GH couRr} [S#]:,="?#ffi.,T,.Hin,T:iNA

¶3

Ar HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY,^{THE FIFTHDAY OFAUGTJST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FI/E}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 388750F 2022}

¶8

Between:

¶9

:3[[t J3S,,5*s3,^{ff [3ra;fis;$ i:s:ii," Jffi f} ^,Y"%:i:9^{Jl,l:r ffiJ?glTsl'}

¶10

...PETITtONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The o'"'pai,i State J"t^{ier of a Telangana, n gi ni seireta rep by ii at Hyd erabadits. Principal Secretary'Education}

¶13

2 The State of^{Telangana,rep by.its PrincipalSecretary' Financeand Planning} D;;;;"1,^{Secrelariat.HYderabad}

¶14

J The District^{Collector, and Chairmanfor Selection Committee and Minimum} Wag; Corntnittee.^{Jangoan District'}

¶15

4 The Zilla^{Praja Parishad, Jangoan District'Repby its Chief Executive Officer}

¶16

4 5 The Mandal^{Parishad Development Officer'Devartrppala Mandal' Jangoan} Drstrict, TS

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition^{under Article226 of the Constitutionof lrrdia praying that in the} circumstances^{statedinthe affidavit filed therewith,the High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue^{an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Wilt of} Mandamus^{to decrarethe action of the Respondents in not treating the services of} petrtioner as^{regularone in last grade post from date of appointment of petitioner} by denying^{to pay legitimatelivingwages for actually workingas full time sweeper} for all^{purposeson par with regularly engagedlast grade employeesin} respondent^{department as per High powercommitteer€)portof 1St respondent}

¶19

d1.07.10.1996^{in violationof Article 14, 16, 21 ,39 (d)' 43 : rd 300 (A) of our} Constitution^{by not implementing Section13 and 15 of Minim I r Wages Act"l948} andprovisionsofEqualRemunerationAct,l9T6insplteolabrrtionofthebonded labour as^{per Act 1976 in treating the petitioner as slavec r l>ondedlabourby} paying pittance wage^{of Rs.4,000/-even after continuously / orking on full time} from nearly^{four decades as unjust,un{air' illegal and uncon i itutionaland prays} to call for the^{official records relatingto service condili} 'ns,^{seniority and} sanctionedpostsofcontingentsweeperslastgradepostsinZ']P/MPPschoolsin our state along^{with implementationof HighPowet C: nmittee reportin} D'o.Lr.No'415,13iEstt,V/A2.1,dt-0710.1996todirectth€:rei)ondentshereinto treat the services^{of the petitioneras regular one in last grad: post from the date} of initial appointment^{of petitioner by applying the princrplelid by the Hon'ble} Apex Court^{in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U P (l )19 (1) SCC 516)'} followed in WP^{No. 33936 of 201,1 and Batch Casesdate:d C2.i]5-2018 (2020(4</sup> ALD 379 TS^{(DB)and in W A No 4B3 of 2021 daled 05- tB-2021' based on} principle laid by the Hon'ble^{Supreme Courtin C A No 1"254t f 2018 Apex Court'} dated 23-03-2018^{in the case of Netramsahu Vs state01' ct i ttisgarhand Anr in} CivilAppealNo.,l254of201B,dated23-03-20,l8toreckonc)ltingentservicesof petitioner for computation^{of qualifying service to grant of tr ( nsion' gratuityand} other retirement^{benef its on his retirementby releasin 3 all consequential} monetary benefits^{in the last grade post on par wlth regularlr' -'ngaged last grade} employees of^{the respondent departments,along withperic( ical increments'as} revised from time^{to time with arrearsof pay by grantr g 100 percentage} compensation^{as per principlelaid by Apex Courtin the case r f Union of lndiaVs'} Avtar Chand^{in C A.No3416 - 3445of 2010 and Batch Cas:;dated19-02-2019}}

¶20

.r'" (ALD 3 .a1' of 2019 SC 32)^{by applyingthe aforesaid} J ^.i^^i^ta< 6f^principlesof the Hon'ble^Apex court^{under Article 141 0f our constitution by this Hon'brecourt in the case of} petitioner

¶21

IA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶22

petition under sectron^{r 5.1 cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{firedin support of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleasedto} direct the^{respondentsherein to pay the wages of full timesweeperto the} petitioner as^{paid to colleaguefull timecontingent su/eepers working in the} Panchayat^{Schools in Karimnagar and other districts as perProceedings} No.1277tA8t2O'15,^{dated 07 10 2015 and Proc No A3/173t2019' dt 25 10 202f in} last^{grade time scale revised from time to time with p'eriodicalincrementson} implementing^{in similarly situatedcase in lA No'1/2018in W P No 8418/2018'} dt.15.03.2018^{same by the respondentin G O Ms No'1 55' dated 22032021 by} treatingthepetitionersimilartothemnotasdissimilaraspertheprincipallaidby the Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt in C A No 6260-6261 ot 2021 d|26 10-2021' (2021} (6)ALD 285(SC)

¶23

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI CH. GANESH} Counsel^{for the Respondents No'1 to 3: AGP FOR SERVICES-I} Counsel^{for the Respondents No'4 & 5:SRtPRADEEP REDDY KATTA'} S.C. FOR^{ZPP & MPP}

¶24

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

i-r.-r>-

SN,J wp lEE75 2022

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI TI \NDA WRIT PETITIO N No.38875 OF 20 2 r

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard Sri Ch,Ganesh, learned counsel i rppearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistanl Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on br: talf of the respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Pradeep t eddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP and MPP i ppearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶32

2, The oetitioner aoproached the Court sri :kinq oraver

¶33

as under:

¶34

"...to issue an order or direction more pa I (;ularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the , ction of the Respondents in not treating the services of I tl_itioner as regular one in last grade post from date of ap I ) ntment of petitioner by denying to pay legitimate livirrrl wages for actually working as full time sweeper for all pur I )ses on par with regularly engaged last grade employees ir respondent department as per High power committee rc )ort of 1,, respondent dt,07.10.1996 in violation of Article ..+, t6,21, 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of our Constitution by not ir plementing Section 13 & 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 arr provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 inspite of ab(, tion of the bonded labour as^per Act 1976 in treating the : :titioner as slave or bonded labour by paying pittance wage ot 11s.4,000/even after continuously working on full time front nearly four decades as unjust, unfair, illegal and unconstjt rtional and prays to call for the offlcial records relatinc t.o service conditions, seniority and sanctioned posts oi ,:ontingent sweepers last^{grade posts} in ZPp/Mpp schools I r our state

¶35

¶36

SN,J !vp_18875_2022

¶37

along with implementation of High power Committee report in D.O.1r.No.41513/Estt.V/A2_1, jt.oz.ro.rs9O io oir".t tf," respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as 1e_eut.a1^{one in tast gradepost from tf,u} J"[u of initial a.ppointment of petirioner by applying tne princijte taid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of^'prJm Singh ;i itate or u.e. !291,s !1)^{scc s16), foilowed in wpr,,ro-.} :'3e:6 Ii'zorr "na Batch Cases dared 02_05_-^2018 (2020 fql-i[i itg rS (DB) and in W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated Oi_Oe-2021, based on principle laid by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in-C-q. No. 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23_03_2ore in the c;; of Nerram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Anr. in Civif appeaf No. 1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-20i8 to reckon .ortingUil".vices of petitioner for computation of qualifying ,".u1i"^-to grant of pension. gratuity and other retirem6nt be"ef,,ts on his ::l.:-T:it^{by reteasingail consequentiatmonetary benefitsin} rne tast grade post on par with regularly engaged last grade employees of the responaent SeparimeriG]^- atong witlr periodical increments, as revised from time to time with arrears 9f pgy by granting 100o/o compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union^-oi India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 34L6 _3445 of ZOiO A A;tch Cases dated 1e-02-201e (ALD 3 of 201e sc Jzi-uv'Jplryins tne aforesaid principles oF the Hon,ble npex Couii u riier Articte 141. of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in tfre case of petitioner and pass such order or orders with c;sts in the interest of justice.....,'

¶38

ea ed o ela afl ehalf of n la laa ce th av me m tn e fi le rt th en wrt n tn tn rti lar to he erv s n ed Detitioner with the res pondents h erei for mor tha a e de nt h th iti ne ts tifl rth t ed in th re w titi

t-.--

SN,J !p,18875 t022

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

DISCU SSIO NANDIONCLUxIO N : -

¶45

Learned counsel apDearinq on be] alf of the petitioner submits that the subiect issue in _ the Dresent case is squarelv cover bv the order of this I lourt, dated 08.09.2010 oassed in W.P.No.24377 oJ 2OO1' reoorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W. .No.782 of 201O, dated 10.06.2013 and also order, daterl 19.09.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.272t7 ot 2Ol7 reoorted in^:1 )18⁽²⁾ ALD Paqe 282 and also the order. dated 21,O4.2O 2 O^passed in W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OI9 reoorted in 2020(4) At I⁾ Pa^qe 379.

¶46

Learned standinq counsel aDDearinq on p ehalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the^qrieverr rce of the oetitioner as^put-forth in the oresent Writ Peti ion had not been addressed to the resoondents herein as rn date and therefore, the^petition er cannot comola ln lna r tion on the Dart of resDondents herein in considerino the r rievance of the^petitioner al!(Lhence, the relief as Draye( for by the petitioner nt Wit oetition cannol : be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aqainst the ! espondents hereunder as souqht for and theDe titio rr lr mav be

SN,J wp_38875_2022

directedtoo ut t rth the Detitioner s flevance as Dutfo rthinth e Dresent Writ Petition bv wav ofade ailed reD sentation to the resDo ndents herein and upon receiDt of the said reDresentati on, the soondents would onsid e sam ccord n tol ithin reasonabte Oeriod,

¶51

Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the etation er t dis u h id submissi the r n c uns n beh tf f res onden

¶52

No.4

¶53

The Aoex Court in the iud ment reDorted in (2O2O) 1 s inP m State t tta r Pr d n

¶54

others, at Dara 3 6 held as under:

¶55

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 3040 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularlzed 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

¶56

¶57

SN.J \vp 1887j 2022

¶58

regulate them for consideration of regularizatir r as others have been regularized, we direct that their ;ervices be treated as a regular one. However, it is ma( r clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues c^F difference in wages had they been continued in serv c -. regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. Ti:y shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they hgye retired from the reqular establishment and tt r-! .services rendered bv them right from the day thg y entered the work-charqed establishment shall be ( ounted as qualifvinq servicejo r DurDose of oension."

¶59

The ADex Court i the case of Dharwa( I Dastrict PWD Literate Daily Waqe Emplovees Associatiorr Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 199O(2) SCC Paqe 39ri laid orinciole that the State should not keeD a Derson in temoor arv or adhoc service for lonq oeriod and have t f treat such Dersons as reqular one.

¶60

g P^a r^A No. 53of f he of the irr.ldn, ent rtf t t e Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Unradevi, dated 10.04.2006 reDorted in^(2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:-

¶61

"53. One asoect needs to be clarified. _ here ma e aascq wh^p re irrarrrrlar^annar lnt mc nt _ (not illeoal aDpointments) as exolained in S.V. \arav naoDa 11967⁽¹⁾ SCR 128 1. R.N. Naniundao I a f19 2^(r) SCC 4091 and B.N Naoaraian I 19 79 I 4) SC soTt and referred to in Dara 15 above of⁽ ulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctioned v^aca nt^DOS t ;^miqht have been made and t e emnl ovees have :ontin dto

IfffiXrftxm*m

SN.J \vp_38875_2022

wo rk tor ten VEA orm rehu twi rh out the inte entionofo rde of the courts or of tribu na ls. T u n re ulari atio n the s rvices of uch em lovees mav have to be co nsidered on merits in the lioht of the ori nci oles ettled bv this Court in the ca s abovereferred to andint he liqht of this m .In t con h nton fn ia th te vern nts n th IN r titi uld ke s UI a lm h rvl fsu trre rl oint h h ew edf ten ars rmo dul sanctioned o sts but not under cover of orders of the cou oroft ribu na ls and sho ld furthe r ensure that reoular recr itments are un ertaken to fill those VA nt sanct oned oo ts that require to be filled UD, tn c ses wher e temDo arv emD lovees o r dailv wa qers are erno no emoloved. The rocess must be set in motion within six months from th is date. ....

¶67

e ud nt I h ex urt d d 20.L2 24 reDo din2 24 LawS uit(SC) 12O9 in Jaqqo Anita and others v. Uni noffn dia and o hers, and the rel vant ra hN .L2 1 24 2 and 2 extrac

¶68

hereunder:

¶69

"12. Despite being labelled as ',part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the

¶70

¶71

S N,J lvp 1887i 202 2

¶72

appellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work.

¶73

the

¶74

The claim b the resDonden i; that these were not re ular Dosts lacks m 'it. as the lature of the work^performed E v the apoellants was oerennial and fundame ! rtal to the functioninq of the offices. The rr :urring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective rf how their initial engagements were labelled. It s a lso noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing⁽ ,l these same tasks to private agencies aft : ' the appellants' termination demonstrates the i l ere nt need for these services. This act of outso rrcing, which effectively replaced one set of workt: s with another further underscores that the vr rrk in question was neither temporary nor occasicr al.

¶75

The landmark judgment of the Unite( State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporali rn [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a p)tinent example from the private sector, illustratir g the consequences of misclassifying employ r rs to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as indegrr ndent contractors, thereby denying them enr tloyee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for th: Ninth Circuit determined that these workers w( re, in fact, common-law employees and were enti led to the same benefits as regular employees. Th.^(lourt noted that large Corporations have incre r singly adopted the practice oF hlring ten) )orary employees or independent contractors as a neans of avoiding payment of employee benefits, 1l ereby increasing their profits. This judgment under;cores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned o the worker, should determine employment stat t s and the corresponding rights and benefi -: . It hiohliohts the I ud icia rv's role in rect fvanq

¶76

¶77

SN.,I \p_3E87j 2022

¶78

u ts ifica ns an ufln th wo rkers eive ir treatm ent.

¶79

While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between ',illegal,, and "irreg ular" appointments. It cateooric llv held that molovee tn irreqular aDooint ments, who were enoaqed in dulv sa nctione a DOSTS a nd had served continuouslv for more than ten vears should bec nsidered for reoula rization as a onetime measure, However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to ind iscrim inately 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 sel ctive aoolication d istorts men and se effe IV a onizin^{rr if rrr} ain atrl rtlo ees wh n harra rendered indisoensable servaces over decades.

¶80

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

SN.J \p_18875 2022

morale. By ensuring fair emplo /ment practices, government institutionl; can reduce the burden of unnecessary litig ation, promote job security, and uphol( the principles of justice and fairness th:r they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and ;:ts a positive precedent for the private se: :or to follow, thereby contributing to the ( veral! betterment of labour practices in the crl rntry.

¶85

2A. In view of the above discussic r and findings, the appeals are allowed. The iml ugned orders^passed by the High Court and the^-- ibunal are set aside and the original application is: lowed to the following extent:

¶86

i. The termination orders dated 27.t0.2018 are quashed;

¶87

The aooell nts shall be caken back on dutv forthwith and their servt ces reoularased fort I with. However. the aoDellants shall n ot be entitled to a nv Dec ! nia ry benefits/back aqes for the I eriod thev have not worked for but \ uou ld be entitled to continuitv of s( :l vrces for the said oeriod nd the same wou ld be counted for their postiral ben fi

¶88

The Judoment of the Apex Court dateg 31.O1 .2025 reDorted in 2025 INSC 144 in "S RIPAL ANI t ANOT HER v. NAGAR N IGAM, GHAZIABAD". iN oarticular. the relevant Dara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

SN,.I wp-38875 2027

'15. t s anif th A !lan or en on nu usl ren ered h serv ces ver ver rs ometim s nl m th a eca e. Ev nif e lnm ster I er ot u di ull thEE Dlover's failu re to fu rn ish su ch record s- s di s do o- low a a ve nf nc d I ellh abo urt ru nc ndi la rl s n isf or etu dai -wa or ntr ual n a men ln ctrcums nces whe th workis Derm anent in n tur M r d all wor rs hof tfi! otn m cl r m raf r r cannot be dis issed sum marilv as disoen sa ble. Darticular vint he absence ofao enuin e contractor aoreeme t. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of fndia in the following pa ragraphs:

¶93

"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. Goveinment institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public

SN,J wp_388',75 2027

sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the de1 r mental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode I rblic trust in governmental operations.

¶98

It is a disconcerting reality : rat temporary employees/ pafticularly in governmr: lt institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exgr :itation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or ;:asonal needs, they have increasingly become a meci anism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-t:'m obligations owed to employees. These practic: i manifest in several ways:

¶99

a Misuse of "TemDorarv" Labell: E lo ees enoaoed for work that is essent ! rl, recurrinq,

¶100

and inteqral to the functioninq of rn institution are often I labelled as "ter |rqrarY" or "contractual," even when their roles mlrror those of qular emDlo l 3es. Such

¶101

m iscla ssification deorives work ers of the diqnitv, securi and benefits that qular emolovees are entitled to. desoi !: performino identical tasks.

¶102

. Arbitra ry Termination: Temporary rmployees are frequently dismissed without cause or rotice, as seen in the present case. This practice rr rdermines the principles of natural justice and subje,: s workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardles,: of the quality or duration of their service. . La:k of Career Prog ression : Temporary employee^,: often find themselves excluded from opportur ities for skill development, promotions, or incremer tal pay raises. They remain stagnant in their rol€ s, creating a systemic disparity between them ar( their regular counterparts, despite their contr I utions being equally sig nifica nt.

-FrEz--\

sN.i sp 38875 2022

. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions rncreasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. f'ni, pri.iil" not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate eFFort to bypass the obligation to offer reg ular employment.

¶107

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

¶108

The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were Ieft in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

¶109

In light of these considerations, the Em ployer'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. Industria I Disputes Act, L947, and that thev weree nqaoed tn

SN,J wp 38875-2022

essen ial, oerennia I dutie s the e worl( :rs cannot be releoa ted to oero tual uncerta intv. V, rile con cern s of municioal budoet and com E liance with recruitment rules merit conside ation, a uc concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutrl oblioat rons or neo te eouitable entitlemen Indee bu reaucratic limitations cannot trumD _l he leoitamate rio hts of workmen who have s rved c g ntinuouslv in de facto reqular rol es for an extended I1:riod.

¶114

The imouoned order of the Hiqh :ourt. to the extent thev confi ne the Aooella t Worli nen to future da itv-waoe enoa ement wi out ': )n uit r meaninqful back waoes, is herebv set ; side with the llowin ctions:

¶115

I. The discontinuation of the Appel . nt Workmen's services, effected without compliance ' rith Section 6E and Section 6N oF the U.P. Industri;r Disputes Act, 1"947, is declared illegal. Atl orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the App(r a nt Workmen shall be treated as continuing in so vice from the date ot their termination, for all pur I lses, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶116

II. The Respondent Employer shali reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respec ive posts (or posts akin to the duties they previou ;ly performed) within four weeks from the date of his judgment. Their entire eriod of absenc (fro n the date of termination until actual rei staterr ent) shall be coun d for contin u itv of serr ice and all conseoue ntial benefits, suc as en tort and elio ibilitv for o motions, if anv.

{t-m*

SN.J Np 38875_2022

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

¶122

Th ond n m lo r di cted in itiate a fair and tra nsDa rent process for reoula rizino the DDellant Workmen wit in six mont s from the date of reanstatement dulv consi erino the fact that thev have oerformed ia! m al du tn manen oosts. In assessrnq re u la rizatio n the Emo lover shall not i mDose ed ucationa I or Droced ural criteria retroactivelv if such reo uirements were ever ao lied to the Aooellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reoular emolovee s in the oast. To the extent hat ned va es for uties xt or are required. the Re oondent Emo lo er shall exoedite all necessarv administrativ e D cesses to ens re these Ionotime emolovees are not indefini telv retained on dailv waoes co trarv to statuto and eouitab le norms.

¶123

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."

¶124

L2. The ADex Court in a iu do ment reDorted in (2OL7l L Suore e Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab a nd others Ja ln hando h a 4andi u ara ( Ll(2i( 3 ) of the said iudomen t ohser ed as under:

¶125

¶126

SN,J \p_ 18875 2022

¶127

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, v, ,ile adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, lhat temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum ot he regular payscale, mereiy for the reason, that the activiti? ; carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were simtl,l . The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary enp toyees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held ent t ed to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regula^- ?mployees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the lt. lh^{Court in the} impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: -

¶128

"( 1 ) A daily wager, ad hoc or contr,t 'tual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, it )ppointed after undergorng a selection process based u-: >n fairness and equality of opportunity to all other elitl ble candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regul,t oay scale from the date of engagement.

¶129

(2) But if dailv waoers. ad hoc ! r contractual appointees are not appointed a, 7 ,inst reoular sanction Dosts and their servtct ,_ are availed continuouslv, with notional breaks.- bv the State Govern ment or its instrumen ties t- ,rasu fficient lono period i.e. for 7O vears, such d,1 lv waqers. ad hoc or contractual appointees shall _ te entit to mlntmum of the reoular Dav scale wit.'hout anv allo nces on the a ssumDtion r,., tat work of such perennial lo natureDeriod of available and time an eoui hav , to ableworkriqht ed foris created in such categorv of persons, _.'heir claim for requla r tion, if anv. mav have to ,e considered seDara telv in terms of Iesallv 'missi rle scheme.

¶130

(3) In the event, a claim is made for mii -num pay scale after more than three years and |o months of completion of 10 years of continuous t trking, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sl i ll be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and tw ) months.,,

¶131

The iudqment of the Apex Court reportq lin2 10(9) scc 2 between: ate of Karn taka e rrd others v

¶132

¶133

SN,J wp 18875 2022

¶134

M.L.l(esari and others, in oarticula r, aras 4 o 9 readsas

¶135

u n der:

¶136

The ectston in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 0.4.2006 (reoo rted in 2006 G )SCC1 ). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relatingto appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or reengagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarity issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the 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 instru menta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court futthir 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 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

¶137

"s3. one asDect n s to be cla fied. There av be cases where irreoular aoooin ents^(not illesal ,n as ained Nara 796 R7 R.Ar. scc 4O9l and B.N. Naoaraian I7979 (4) SC,c 5071 and ffed to in ra 75 above. of dulv oualified Derso s in dulv sanctioned vaca t oosts mio t have been ade and the emolovees have con ued to work for ten vears or more b t withou the inte ntion of orders of e courts or of trib unals. The ouestion of reoula tion of the servi' sof such emolovee.'s mav have to be conside on mert in the li,oht of the DrtncrD les settled b this Cou in the ca es above ferred to and in the lioht of this iudoment. In that con text. the Un, India, the State c vernmen and their instr mentali shoul,d take steos to reaulat, ze as mem u e s ch ir,

::--f-_f-r'3

SN,J wp 38875 2022

ADDOi nted, o have orked for tet vearsot more ind ulv sanctioned n sts but not _ tnder cover of

¶142

ord,ers of the couri< or of tribur! ,ts and sh uld further ens re that reoular rec ruitments are undertaken t vacant sa^,rctioned posts that Lequire to be filled UD, ,tl ca ere tem orarv emoloveesorda wel 'ers are beino now emDloved, The process must l\ ' set in mo tion wtthi months from this date

¶143

"5. It is evident from the above that ther: is an exception to the general principles against^{'regularizat,c} 1' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfi er,

¶144

(i) The employee concerned should have work,: I for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benei or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. ln ,ther words, the State Government or its instrumentality shou,c have emptoyed the employee and continued him in servict. toluntarilv and continuously for more than ten years.

¶145

(ii) fhe appointment of such employee shout,, not be iltegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments a e not made or continued against sanctioned posts or wh:.e the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minirn: T qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illeg;. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed q,itlifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but h t I been selected with.out undergoing the process of open contp,titive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregul,t .

¶146

(iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon 1'e^concerned Governmentor instrumen litv. ta ke steas to reou rize the seruice's of those trredu,a rlv aooointed emDlovees ho had served for more ll an ten fs without the nefit or Dtotection of dnv in l =rim^{orders of} cou or tribunals. asao -time mea ;_ tre. Umadevi. recfe t ho e su I ,sf be set tn motion with,n stx m onths the afe : tf its decision e 70. oo6

¶147

The term^'one-time measure' has to be t,t clerstood in its proper perspective. This would normally mear that after the decision in Umadevi, each depaftment or eac,) instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prec )re a list of a'll

¶148

¶149

SN,J wp_38875_2022

¶150

casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working foy. more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they ale working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

¶151

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several da ily-wage/ad_ hoc/casual employees tlere still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one_ time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentatities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several emptoyees 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 tlmadevi, witt not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one_time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in pZra 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise shoutd consider all daily_ wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years^'of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without avaiting the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals.7f any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, ihe'employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise witt be concluded only when all the employees who are entitted to be considered in terms of Para 53 of umadevi, are so considered.

¶152

a. iect- behind e said d irection in oara 53of Um devi is two- fold. First is to en ure that those who ut I le an n rs of tin servi wit, out the Dro n of an vrnte mo rders of cou rts or tribunals, before the date of dec,ston tn Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularizat ntn wof the r lon service. nd is to ensure that the en ta s ot etu the Dra ceo Dlo YTNO rsons on ilv-wao e /adc casual n eri an en riodi' u m e d he s for ore n e tin con tion

¶153

¶154

SN,J wp_18875 2022

¶155

s o E cruitment and ! tion is that alt oersons who have worked for more than .en vears as on 7O.4.2O06 fthe date of decision in ltmad ; vil without the orotection of anv interim order of anv coe ! t or tribunal. in l 'alification, are ,- r. The fact that ! h exercise of I e ecrsron tn or ,se su k rtaken onlv,n reoard to a li,mited few. will not f^isentitle such m lo to n rl ulariza tion tn rms o the a ove di tion tn de !^ta sa e-ti. e measure.

¶156

These appeals have been pending for mor= than four years after the decision in umadevi. The Appeltant ,Zita panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases ot respondents of regularization within six months of the decisit 1 in umadevi or thereafter.

¶157

The Division Bench of the High Court has trrected that the cases of respondents shoutd be considered ir lccordance with law. The only further direction that needs be r iven, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, Ga ) rg should now undertake an exercise within six months, a (( neral one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether tie 'e are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zile )anchayat and if so whether such employees (includiig the rt,: oondents) fu lfill tne requtrements mentioned in para 53 of llma; :vi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regutarized. If : uch an exercise has already been undertaken by ijnoring or or itting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because'of1he pindency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered tr .ontinuation of the said one time exercise within three months [t is needless to say that if the respondents do not futfi the 'equirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not,) t regularised. If the employees who have completed ten year s service do not possess t h e -e d u ca t i o n a I q u a t i fi ca t i o n s p restr i b e : for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may b t considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This'app,) tt is disposed of accordingly.

¶158

¶159

SN,J \rp 38815 2027

¶160

In the i udo ent of the Aoex Court i Nihal Sinqh rrrd ;rlharc rr st2+a ofP n^irh re orted in 2013 L4^caa 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 disposa! their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary 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 cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationshap, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to acceDt the defence that there were no sanctioned Dosts and so there was iustifica ion for the State to utilise services of laroe number of oeoole Iike the appellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some rationa! assessment

¶161

SN.J \r.p:l8ll75 2022

¶162

--r-

¶163

of need. Referrlnqto Um adevi, it held that :hea oellants before them were not arbitra rilv chosel. th ir ini al a ot m ntwas o n r r' inl! lent as it had b en ad ln a co an t l:or D roc du e res ib d r e li e 1 1 ! rd the State ca n b he d a t e Ot,)n tl b a bsorbed into the s rvices oft he tate E n^permanent b srs as, accordi nqt it, thei r aD DOi tm nl wereD ure ly t m a an n t tn t an to .i ro tsc rea d bv the Sta te. t a h a h m rr: an m devi c nn tb comea li n for exDloi tation v !he State and instrume ntalitiesa nd neithert eG(l,ernment of u a or ho e bt c rB n c I^tanue such a practice lnconsistent with th tro blio tto i] ( fun tonin rd it th u n 5. Th u m n of h A ex r led in2 o1s scc Onl ine SC l7 97 between B.Sr ntv sulu 9. ndothersv Nell re tct a to r) nmissioner, ell re Di tc h r d s a s nI,a rti ul as7 8r d a er

¶164

¶165

SN,J wp 38815 2022

¶166

(7) We find i difficult to acceDt he reasonino adoo d bv the Hioh ourt The riaht of the aDDellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. Thea DDellant have been in service of the first resDond,ent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but e ven subseo uent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶167

In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their compteting their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.

¶168

16, In Amar nt Rai v State f Bihar reDorted (2015) I scc 265, the Suorem ecourt held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of m lo men rsons wh served h Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten vea rs". In that case, emDlovee was workinq for 29 vears. decisi s earli rew ex r

¶169

M.L.Kesari ex racted above.

¶170

\ \

¶171

---=. ::E.-.':1=.\e.-

¶172

¶173

SN,J wp 38875 202 2

¶174

In tat of ar ha dv al P sa( e rte tn 2 L4 7 2 3 st it vt w rken bv the Su rem Cou an a el as w

¶175

7.. nv

¶176

c, o I n ,f fact on the relevan contentious rssue that th nt 1 ,n em lovees n ed I r o 'ha 7O v'ears on uou ci I laid down bv th Court in Uma vl se 15tate Ka a r. rka v Umadevi (2 06) 4 scc 7 2006 Scc (L &s) 73) a D' t ,a 3 ua lv

¶177

AD lies to the Dre nt ases Th Di o ! Bench of the Hish C,ourt has rrohtlv held that tt IJ res nd' nt es e r me cannot be te red th u

¶178

The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2,2O22 passed in W.p.No.27602 of 2019 whict pertaans to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshtr i Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Natgonda Di: trict, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.10.20 l3 and also confirmed by the order of Apex : ourt dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.32847 ot 2f,24.

¶179

h ud en of h A n ;^ari Krishna Ma ndir Tru tv.state ofM aha ras tra a nd th ( rs reDo ed in AIR 2o2OSU Dre e Court 396 an in oa icu la r Dara o oo nd 1O1 el lt w

¶180

2.O

¶181

SN.J wp 38875_2022

¶182

"100. The High Courts exercising their^{jurisdiction under} Article 226 of the Constitution of India,^not only^{have the} power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exe rcis such o r wh r heG v rnm nt or hori has fail d to exercise or has wronqlv xercised d iscretio n conferred upon t bv a statute, or a^{rule, or} a oolicv decis ion of the Government or^has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on i releva nt consideration.

¶183

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

¶184

The Division Bench of this Court in^itsJudqment dated 1O. 05.2013 Dassed in^{W.A.Nos.782 ol 20 1O and 854} ot 2OL2 while uoholdi no the^{Judoment dated O8.O9 .2010} oassed in W.P.No.24 77 of^{2OO7and C.C.No.48} f 2008

¶185

observed as under:-

¶186

"Further, it is manifest from the material on record that^the services of the similarly^{placed persons who approached thelaw} Courts were regularized. The^{appella nt-Corporation alsoissued} various office orders/circu lars dated^{20.12.1989,11.09.1992,} 06.10.2007 and latest being^{4.7.2009for regularizationoF} casual/contract employees, It^{is also to be seenthat Section 25-} T of the ID Act^prohibits unfair labour^{practiceby any employer} or workman. As can be^{seen from the factual scenario of the} cases on hand, engaging the^{respondentsfor such a long and} continuous^period of time on casual^{baslsis nothingbut unfair} labour practice attracting the^{provisionsof Section 25-Tof the} ID Act. The learned Single Judge^{while relying on the decisions} of the Apex Court, rightly held that^{the respondentsare entitled} to regularization as directed in the^{impugnedorders, as the} learned single Judge considered all the^{aspectsof the matterin}

':':; '1: -:i'- '

SN.J \vP :l8ti7j 202 2

¶191

detail, in the proper perspective, which, in ou^- considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

¶192

2L. The Division Bench of this Court in - ts Judoment dated 19.O9.2017 oassed in W.P.No.27^j L7 of 2OL7

¶193

reoorted in 2O18(2)A D oaqe 282 at Dara 1l and Dara 18

¶194

observed as under:-

¶195

" 16. It is trite that the law declared by the ; rpreme Court is binding throughout the country under Art( e 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that t y the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), wa s rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1991, were in existence. The Suprerr i Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization anrl absorption oF f persons/ who entered service through back c< ors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for ppointments to public posts, consciously ordered or one-time a bsorptio n/ reg u la rization of those, who wer: working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given irections in th is regard to all the State Governments and als{) Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be consciou; of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executi.r rorders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, white givi rg directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's <i se (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of 1 re States where State enactments banning regu la rization/: t sorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 of I 994 10O and G.O. Ms . No.212, dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the 4 idth and the iudoment in Maniul, Bashini's case^(su T ra), does not lower the trai ecto I of the directions siued bv the Srrnrerne Cou rt tn Para 53 .lfats iudo men t_ in Uma Devi's case^(suora). It is, therefore. not Dernl ssible for the resDondents to take helter under Act 2 o.' 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, to denv rt:, rularization to the oetitioners, who have, admittedlv,_ satisfied the crateria laid down in Para No,53 of the iu c qment in Uma Devi's case^(suora ).

¶196

For the aforementioned reasons, order, : )led 27.6.2077, in OA No.1442 of 2O14, on the file of the Trit,r nal is set aside

SN.J \p 38875_2022

and the wrlt n t on ts allowed with he direction to the res onden to nsider reoularisatio nofth e services of th e on tn e tn v a ncr ofw rk n d int m t r tn the criteri laid down rn Para o.53 ofthei domentin this order."

¶201

The Div ision Bench o this Cou rt in its Judom ent dat d 2L.O4.2O2O oa sed in I.A.Nos-1 of 20 2Oin1of 2019 an W.P.N 230s7 t2 1 re din2 o 4 D a

¶202

379 at Daras 45.48 a nd Dara O obse edasu nder: -

¶203

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) year-s of service by now. They have been given minimum time_scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 4A It is n known whv the 1st resDond ent has not follo ed the decision in Uma Devi's case (suora), as tn in M. esari' se an erta k one-time exercise of reDarrno the Iist of dailv waqe emolo vees who had worked for more than ten [ 10) vears ith ut the in rve ntaon of theCourts an d Tri bu na ls as on 10.4. 2OO6 and subiect them AD roces erifica t o as to whether thev are workino aoainst vac nt Dosts and o e trr ua li n f e nd if reou larize their servtces.

¶204

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2OL9 passed by the 1st respondent rele-ting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one_ time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India; the resDondents are directe d to reou larize on one-time basis oetitioners' servtces from the date eachoft he Detitioners let 1 r rv on w I th ial da heir en .B th all b ent tled to an monet a relief The said exercise sh il be

SN,J wp 38875 202?

done within two⁽ 2 weeks from the da!: of receipt of coov of th e order."

¶209

This Court oDrnes that in the Dres( nt case, the resDo ndents failed to discharqe their dutv in examrni nq re of th etation or re t larization of oetitioner' who is workinq as full time sweeDer and further to consider his reouest treat I he te DOra rv servlce of the oetitio ner in the last rade or ) of full e swee r as re(I ular one for all ouro oses b\ qrantinq last qrade Dav with eriodical increment reviseri from time to time from the date of aooointment f the oetitioner ln accordance to law.

¶210

This urt opines that Detitioner entitl ed for consid eration of oetitione r's ca se for qrant r)'the r lief as praved for in the present Writ Petition irr view of the observataons of the Aoex Court in va rto L sl udome nts ( referred to and extracted above) and thr view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Jud qmel1s referred to d extracted v

¶211

Takinq into co eration:-

SN,J wp_3E675 2022

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5

¶216

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

¶217

i)(2020) l SCC (L&S) (ia) 1990(2) SCC pase 396 (iii) 2O2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l sCc 148 (vi) 2O1O(9) Scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 sccz23 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 39G9 (xiii) (20o6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 202O(a)ALD page 379

¶218

d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.tgZ of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above),

SN,J wp 38875_202 2

e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2Ot 7 (referred to and extracted above),

¶223

f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot ZO2O in . of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extr. cted above).

¶224

S)^{In the light of} discussion and conclusior as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the preser t order.

¶225

The Writ Petition is allowe the _ oetitioner is directe put-forth the claim of the retitioner for reoularization of oetitioner's servtces and lso th claim of the Detitione r to treat the temDorarv s ( rvices of the petitio n the last rade post of Sweeper s reqular e for al! ourposes bv qrantinq last orade pav 4 ith oeriodical increments revised from time to time frot r e date aDDointment of the Detitioner an all :on equentia I bene duly closinq all the relevant r locuments in suD^port of Petitioner s se as Dut-forth il the Dresent writ^petition wit lna riod of one fO1) r eek from the

¶226

dateofr eceiDto f CO of t eorder and thg respondents

¶227

¶228

SN.J \p _388'.7 5 _2112 2

¶229

-..fl

¶230

shall exa ine and con slder the same in acco rdance to law, in conformitv with orin cID les of natural iustice bv orovidino an oDoortunitv f oersonal hearin q to the petitioner in terms of orders Dassed bv the Supreme Uma D vi' or ed in 2O Pa e1 the iudqment passed in W.P.No.24377 2OO7 dated O8.O9.2O1O reoorted in 2O11 (1) ALD. Pa e 234 and as confirmed in .A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O6.2O13. and er Division B n h e of this Cour L9.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.N 0.27217 ot 2OO7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD Daoe 2A2 an also the Division Bench Judoment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.l oJ 2O2O in 1 of 20 19 in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 't reDorted in 2o 20( 4 ALD Daqe 379 which had attained finalitv. w thin a oen od of four⁽⁰⁴⁾ weeks from the date of receiDt of a coov of t is order, dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the ADexCourt in the variou s iudoments^(referred to and extracted above^'1. and in o rticular, oara No.53 of the iudqment of the Aoex Court in the case of State of erna teka v. UmeD evi and dulvco m mu nlcate the

SN.] lvP 18875 2022

decision to the oetitioner. However, ther e shall be^no

¶235

order as to costs.

¶236

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin I in this Writ

¶237

Petitlon, shall stand closed

¶238

iD/-A. JAYASREE IS; ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

-i =CrlOn OFFICER

One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS. JUSTTCE S I Pr\ -Ll NANDA (For Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal

¶243

'I . 11 L.R. Copies.

¶244

The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, IVlinistry of Larar, JL,: trce and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶245

II t

¶246

g If,g. Secretary, .Telangana Advocates Associatic,n Lrl rary, High Court

¶247

Buildings, Hyderabad

¶248

The Principal Secretary, Education Department. St: er of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat. Hyderabad

¶249

The Princip3l Secretary, Finance and planning De: rrtment, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶250

The District Collector and Chairman for Selection Oomrl ttee and Mlinimum Wages Committee, Jangoan District.

¶251

7 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Jangoar listrict. 8. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Devaruppa : Mandal, Jangoan District, TS

¶252