Allowed

K. Papaiah, And 16 Others v. State of Telangana, And 34 Others

Telangana HC23 Jul 2025WP/46922/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bore well Mechanics engaged for years on NMR basis sought regularization, alleging discrimination as one colleague was regularized. The court directed respondents to consider their cases for regularization in accordance with law after personal hearing within four weeks, with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' regularization with personal hearing within four weeks and pass orders with consequential benefits; no costs.

K. Papaiah, And 16 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 46922 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . K. Papaiah, S/o. Sailu, Aged about 48 years, Caste. BC, Occ. Hand Pump Irilechanic working at Nizamsagar l\r'landal, Nizamsagar l,4andal, Kamareddy District.

¶9

E. Balaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 47 years, Caste. SC (l\4adiga), Occ. Hand Pump lVlechanic working at Pulkal l\ilandal, Pulkal l/andal, Sangareddy District.

¶10

A. Yadaiah, Sio. Narsaiah, Aged about 44 years. Caste. BC(B), Occ Hand Pump [Vlechanic working at Nangunur [tr]andal, Nangunur Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶11

A. Balaiah, S/o. Rajamallaiah, Aged about 42 years, Caste. BC(Goud), Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶12

K. Srisailam, S/o. Shankaraiah, Aged about 48 years, Caste. BC(B), Occ. Hand Pump It4echanic working at Hathnura ltilandal, Hathnura lvlandal, Sangareddy District.

¶13

A. Venkatesham, S/o. Lachaiah, Aged about 40 years, Caste. BC, Occ. Hand Pump l\rlechanic working at Jinnaram Mandal, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District.

¶14

Ir4d. Pasha, S/ o. Ivlohiuddin, Aged about 46 years, Caste. BC(E), Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Korutla ltrlandal, Korutla Mandal, Jagityal District.

¶15

B. M. Sudhakar, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 37 years, Caste. BC, Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Andole Mandal, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District.

¶16

P. Deepla Naik, S/o. Narsa Naik, Aged about 37 years, Caste. ST, Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Alladurg Mandal, Alladurg Mandal, Medak District.

¶17

P. Bataiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 50 years, Caste. SC, Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Regode Mandal, Regode [Mandal, Medak District.

¶18

'1 1. M. Sathaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 45 years, Caste. BC(D), Occ. Hand Pump [\ilechanic working at Kondapaka Mandal, Kondapaka Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶19

12.8. Praveen, S/o. Posha Mallaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Malyala Mandal, Malyala Mandal, Jagityal District.

¶20

13.K. Sailu, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged about 38 years, Caste. BC, Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Nagireddypet Mandal, Nagireddypet Mandal, Kamareddy District.

¶21

C. Venkatesham, S/o. Budilingam, Aged about 41^years Caste. BC(B), Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Kathlapoor fvlandal. Kathlapoor Mandal, Jagityal District

¶22

P. Raj Kumar, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged about 44^yearc Caste^BC(B), Occ. Hand Pump Mechanic working at Sulthanabad lV]andal, Sulthanabad^lvlandal, Peddapalli District

¶23

16.A. Durgaiah, Sio. Rajaiah, Aged about 52 years, Caste. SC, Occ. Hand Pump Itrlechanic ',t,orking at Ramadugu lt4andal, Ramadugu ,4andal, Karimnagar District.

¶24

J Srinivas, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Hand Pump l,4echanic working at Gollapalli Nlandal, Gollapalli Mandal, Jagityal District.

¶25

..,PETITIONERS

¶26

AND

¶27

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad

¶28

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Developmerrt Dept, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶29

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Developntent Dept, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶30

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶31

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Kamareddy District.

¶32

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Sangareddy District.

¶33

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Siddipet District.

¶34

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Jagityal District.

¶35

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Medak District.

¶36

1 0. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Peddapalli District.

¶37

11.The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar District.

¶38

12.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kamareddy District.

¶39

13.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sangareddy District.

¶40

14.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddipet District.

¶41

15.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jagityal District.

¶42

'16.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Medak District.

¶43

17.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Peddapalli District.

¶44

'1 8. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Karimnagar District.

¶45

19.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nizamsagar Mandal, Kamareddy District.

¶46

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pulkal l\4andal, Sangareddy District.

¶47

2'l . The Mandal Parishad Development Offrcer, Nangunur IVlandal, Siddipet District.

¶48

22.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Siddipet lVandal, Siddipet District.

¶49

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Hathnura Mandal, Sangareddy District.

¶50

The lVandal Parishad Development Officer, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District.

¶51

The tt4andal Parishad Development Officer, Korutla lilandal, Jagityal District.

¶52

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Andole lvlandal, Sangareddy District.

¶53

The lr,4andal Parishad Development Officer, Alladurg lrrlandal, Medak District.

¶54

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Regode l/andal, tvledak District.

¶55

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kondapaka I,4andal, Siddipet District.

¶56

The lvlandal Parishad Development Officer, fMalyala l\rlandal, Jagityal District.

¶57

31 . The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nagireddypet l,4andal, Kamareddy District.

¶58

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kathlapoor [l,4andal, Jagityal District.

¶59

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Sulthanabad Mandal, Peddapalli District.

¶60

34.The l,4andal Parishad Development Officer, Ramadugu lvlandal, Karimnagar District.

¶61

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Gollapur IMandal, Jagityal District. ...RESPONDENTS

¶62

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction or more particularly one in the Nature of IVlandamus declare the action of the respondents in no n-reg ula rizing the services of the petitioners in terms of the Honorable Supreme Court judgments and not regularizing the services of the petitioners on par at par regularized the service of one of the members of the union Sri. i\ild. [rlasood Ali, Bore well Mechanic (Hand Pump Mechanic), working at Both, Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No.182, Dld.14lO3l201 7 as iliegal, arbitrary, high discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, u nconstitutional, unlawful and in violation of Ariticles 14, 16, 19,21 and 23 of the Constitution of lndia and in violation of the

¶63

Principles of Natural Justice and against to a catena of Judgments of an Apex Court and set aside the same and consequently direct^rhe respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in purview of the Judgments of an Apex Court with consequential benefits.

¶64

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶65

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the salaries to the^petitioners in terms of the Judgment of an Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh and others, (C.A.No.213 of 2013 and its batch), Dtd.2611012016 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶66

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU

¶67

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: AGP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

¶68

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4 &12 to 18: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV

¶69

Counsel for the Respondent No.10, 1 1 , 33 & 34: SRI KISHOR.E RAO PUSKURU, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶70

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 9, 19 to 32 & 35: SRI R.CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR CJRAM PANCHAYAT

¶71

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶72

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶73

WRIT PETITION No.46922 OF 2022

¶74

ORDER:

¶75

Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of General Administration appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing on behalf of respondent Nos,2 to 4 and 12 to 18, Sri Kishore Rao Puskuru, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.10, 11, 33 and 34 and Sri R.Chandra Shekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.S to 9, 19 to 32 and 35.

¶76

2, The^petitioners aporoached this Court bv filino the

¶77

oresent writ oetition seekinq the oraver as under:

¶78

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction or more particularly one in the Nature of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in non-regularizing the services of the^petitioners in terms of the Honorable Supreme Court^judgments and not regularizing the services of the^petitioners on^par at^par regularized the service of one of the members of the union

SN, ] vtP 46922 202'

Sri Md. Masood Ali, Bore well Mechanic^(Hand Pump Mechanic), working at Both, Adilabad District through G.O.R.t.No.182, dated 14.03.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, high discriminatory, unjust, unfair u n reaso na ble, irratlonal, unconstitutional, unlawful and in violation of Articles 14, L6, 19,21 ard 23 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the Principles of Natural lustice and against to a catena of Judgments of an Apex Court and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services oF the petitioners in ourview of the ludgments of an Apex Cou;-t with consequential benefits and^pass. . . "

¶83

The case of the^petitioners in brief as^per the averments made in the affidavit filed bv the oetitioners in supoort of the oresent Writ Petition is as under:-

¶84

The petitioners are appointed as Bore well Mechanics (NMR basis) in the State of Telangana, and worked as such for decades. The petitioners are questioning the action of the respondents in not-regularizing thc services of the petitioners and not^paying the salaries of minimum time scale to the petitioners, who are discharging the duties on par with the regular employees. It is further the case of the petitioners that services of one union member, Mr.Md.Masood Ali, Bore well Mechanic was regularized through G.O.RI.No.182, dated 14.03.2017 but services oF petitioners however had not been

¶85

sN, l wP 46922 202:/-.

¶86

regularized inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶87

PERUSED THE RECORD:

¶88

A) The Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the resDondent No.35 and in oarticular, Paraqraph Nos.S, 6

¶89

& I are extracted hereunder:

¶90

"5. It is submitted that, it is true that the hand pump mechanics who are working as daily wage workers, work under the instructions of MPDO whenever their services are needed throughout the mandal and they were not appointed by the MPDO, thev are not liable to be absorbed or reoularized as thev have not been aooointed bv comoetent authoritv aqainst anv available vacancies. It is further submitted that thev don't work throuqhout month, onlv thev render their services whenever they are required to.

¶91

It is submitted that the pump mechanics are liable to repair and are free to work anywhere and not bound to stay From morning to evening, they are hired whenever their services are required and paid according to standard schedule rates and G.O.Ms.No.11 dated L7/Ot/2012 which sums Rs. ll,l3B/- per month.

¶92

B. It is submitted that the service of only Mr.Masood Ahmed who was appointed under proper appointment order and the^petitioner Nos.1 and 13 herein is onlv a dailv waoe worker and not been appointed under anv appointment order. So, there is no discrimination and which doesn't forbid any Article i.e., L4, 16 of the Constitution of India."

¶93

¶94

SN, ] \P 46922-202'

¶95

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioners placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court on 09.12.2022 in W.P.No.35664 ot 2017 and the ludgment dated 09.L2.2022 in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 and contended that the petitioners in the present writ petition are also entitled for regularization of their services in accordance with law in terms of the said orders since the^petitioners herein are similarly situated as the petitioners thereunder in the said two writ petitions. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further contends that the petitioners had been discharging their duties as Bore well Mechanics, since considerable period but however they were neither absorbed nor paid lawful salary for the past two decades, and the case of the petitioners for regularization of petitioners services need to be considered, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in various ludgments pertaining to the regularization of the services of the employees, who worked and rendered their services for more than a decade. W.P.No. I L4145 of 2016 was filed in this Court against the respondents for not considering the representations of Borewell Mechanics Union of the State and this Court was pleased to the pass the

¶96

¶97

sN, l wP 46922 2022

¶98

orders on 25.04.20L6 directing the respondents to consider the representation of Borewell lvlechanics Union of the State and pass appropriate orders within Eight Weeks. As no orders were passed, Contempt Case No. 1908 of 2016 had been filed. After filing of said contempt case, the respondents passed orders, vide proceedings No.37lCPR&RE/C2/2015 dated 27.10.2016, regularizing the service of only one Mr. Sri Masood Ali, instead of regularizing the services of all the eligible temporary employees through G.O.Rt.No.lB2 dated 14.03.2017 Hence, the petitioners had been discriminated by respondents by.not regularizing the services of petitioners, even though petitioners'Qualification, Nature of Work, Duties and Responsibilities are similar to the others whose services had been regularized by the respondents.

¶99

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 9, 19 to 32 and 35, placing reliance on the averments made in the co u n ter-aFfidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.35 in particular at paragraph Nos.5, 6 and B contend that the services of only Mr.Masood Ahmed, who was

¶100

¶101

sN, l wP 46922 2022

¶102

appointed under proper appointment order, had been regularized, but the petitioners are only daily wage workers and were not appointed under proper appointment orders and further that the petitioners did not work throughout the month and had only rendered the services whenever the services were required and hence therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for relief of regularization of services.

¶103

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

¶104

7, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that petitioners were appointed as Bore well mechanics and to prove the said fact the petitioners have also filed a material document which clearly indicates a clear certification by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer of the concerned Mandal stating that the petition€r No.1 had been appointed on 01.07.1995, the petitioner- No.2 was appointed on 02.01.2009, the petitioner No.3 was appointed on 01.08.2008, the petitioner No.4 was appointed on 04.07.20L2, the petitioner No.s was appointed on 13.03.1996, the petitioner No.6 was apc,ointed on 09.03.2010, the petitioner No.7 was appointed on 14.03.2013, the petitioner No.B was appointed on

¶105

¶106

SN, J wP 46922 202/ L6.04.2Ot2, the petitioner No.9 was appointed on 02.01.2012, the petitioner No.10 was appointed on 02.0t.201,2, the petitioner No.11 was appointed on 01.01.2010, the petitioner No.12 was appointed in the month on of May,2009, the petitioner No.13 was appointed 01.08.2012, the petitioner No.14 was appointed on 01.08.2009, the petitioner No.15 was appointed on 16.10.2008, the petitioner No.16 was appointed on 01.09.2014 and the petitioner No.17 was appointed on 02.04.2002 and the^paragraph No.6 of the counter-affidavit also indicates that the^petitioners are being^paid the sum of Rs.11,138 per month as per G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 17.07.2012, but inspite of the repeated requests of the petitioners for regularization of the services oF the petitioners as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, the services of the petitioners had not been regularized as on date and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶107

8. Few latest iudqments of the Apex Court^pertainino he rization t of

discussed below:-

SN, ] wt 46922 201)

9.7 e Jud me t h A ex Court dat d1 .2 25

¶112

Dassed in Civil Aooeal^No.855B of^{2O18reportedin} 202s scc ONLINE SC 1735 in "Dhara m Siinqh and Others v, State of U.P. and Ano th er in oa rticular. the relevant^para Nos.13, L7. L8. 19 and 20 arcr extracted

¶113

hereunder:

¶114

"13. As we have observed in both Jaggo^(Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is; inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a^proper adjudication of the Iegality oF those refusals.

¶115

Before concluding, we think it necessar),to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union,rnd the State governments) is not a mere market pari::cipant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long term extraction of regular Iabour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

¶116

¶117

SN, ] wP 46922 2021

¶118

Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "adhocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer^precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 1.4, 76 and 21 oF the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep^public offices running.

¶119

"19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted^perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:

¶120

i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24,04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV⁽ Peon/Attenda nt/Gua rd or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regu la rization as given above.

¶121

¶122

SN, ] \A',) 45922 2022

¶123

ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the^pay and admissible allorvances at the minimum of the regular^pay-level for the^pos: from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually^{paid, f} c,r'the^period from 24.04.2002 until the ,late of regularization/retirement/death, as the cas,l may be. Amounts already paid under previous interir--r directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 60lo per annum from the date of default until^payment.

¶124

iii. Retired appellants:

¶125

Anv aooella nt who has

¶126

alreadv retired shall be^qranted requlari:zation with effect from 24.O4.2OO2 until the date of su D e rann uation for oav fixatio n a r r€)a rsu n der clause (ii), and recalculation of^{pensi<-ln,qratuitv} and other terminal dues. The revised^pension and terminal dues shall be^paid within three months of this Judqment.

¶127

iv. Deceased appellants: In the case r:f ApDellant No. 5i and anv other appellant who has died durinq Dendency, his/her leqal reDresentative r; on record sha I be oai d the a rrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, tooether with all ternrinal / retiral dues recalculated consistentlv with clause⁽ i), within three months of this Judqment.

¶128

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Governmernt oF Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Educ;rtion Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of complian(:e before this Court within four months of this Judgment.

¶129

We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh tech nica lities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that .lustice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and

¶130

¶131

SN, ] wP 46922 2027

¶132

verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity For these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creatlon of supernumerary^posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a^pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶133

The iudqment of the Apex Court dated 20.L2.2O24, reported in 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in "Jaqqo Anita and others v. Union of India and others", and the relevant^paraqraph Nos,12, L3,24,26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder:

¶134

"12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," 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 appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶135

The claim by the respondents that these were not reqular oosts lacks merit, as the

¶136

¶137

SN, ] w? 46922 2022

¶138

nature of the work^pe!'fol!!ed bta lhe aoDellants was Derennial and fundamental to the functioninq of the offices. The recurr ng nature of these duties necessitates ti-eir classiflcation as regular posts. irrespective of^i.ow their initial engagements were labelled. It is:lso noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of th:se 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 n either temporary nor occasional.

¶139

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 pert,nent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employee:, to circumvent providing benefits. In this .ase, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors. thereby denying them empl,lyee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the l.linth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, comrnon-law employees and were entitled t,: the same benefits as regular employees. The^(lourt noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avc,iding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their' profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work perfo|med, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rig hts and benefits. It hiqhliqhts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassif ications and ensurinq that workers r e c e i^y €lailteatnne-o-t

¶140

While the^judgment in Uma Devi (:;upra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entrles and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principlos are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employeeli. This

¶141

¶142

SN, J wP 46922 2022-

¶143

judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and " irreg u la r" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that emolovees in irreqular aopointments, who were enqaqed in dulv sanctioned^posts and had served continuously for more than ten years should c^{n ncid} ered fnr re ul atio^{n 2< t atnp-firrtp} measure. However , the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscrim 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 a ppropriate This selective aDDlication distorts the iudqment's sDirit and purpose, effectivelv weaponizinq it aoainst emDlovees who have rendered indispensable services over decades,

¶144

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 institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,^promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow. thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶145

In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders

¶146

¶147

SN, J wo 46922 202?

¶148

passed by the Hiqh Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following exte nt:

¶149

i. The termination orders dated '27 .1O.2078 are quashed;

¶150

. The appellan s shall be tal(en back Ir etr ervtces r th. However, the aooellants shall not be n d to n benefits/back waqes for the^period thev have not worked for but would be entitled to contlnlJrty !f set'\Lisei for the said oeriod a nd the same woulrl be counted for their^post-retiral benefij:s,"

¶151

The ludoment of the Aoex Court dated ;-i1.01.2025 reDorted in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL ANl: ANOTHER y.__tlAGAL NIGAM. GHAZIABAD", in parl_icular, the relevant Da-ra Nos.15 to 19 are e J:under:

¶152

"15. It is manifest that the Aopellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several ycars, sometimes spann if certain muster rolls were not oroducect in full, the Emplover's failure to furnish such records-desoite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisorudence. Indian labour law stronolll disfavors oeroetual dailv-waoe or n t ra^{afr ral enarra!arllanfc iri aiiarr} m ct-ana (:S r,vheta the U{qrl^is oermanent in nature. Morally and^legallv. workers who fulfil ongoing_ municipal -reouirements vear after year cannot be dismissed Sl]Iutlillily___as disoensable. oarticularly in the absence of a oenuine

¶153

¶154

SN, ] wP -46922_202A

¶155

contractor o reeme nt. 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 India in the following paragraphs:

¶156

"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 employment 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.

¶157

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:

¶158

a Misuse of "Temporarv" Labels: EmDlovees enqaoed for work that is essential. recurrino. and inteoral to the functionino of an institution are often labelled as "temporTry" s1 "contractual," even when their roles mirror thoseo f reou la r employees. Such m isclassification deprives workers of the diqnitv, securitv. and trenefits fhri ra.r r r lar^prtrnlaveac titled d oerformino identical tasks.

¶159

¶160

SN, ] vt) 46922 202L

¶161

. 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^,rr'orkers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the^quality oi- duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employ.ees often find themselves excluded from opportunrt'es for skill development, promotions, or incrementai pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and iheir regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally s ig n ifica nt.

¶162

. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles 1;erformed by temporary employees, efFectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also dernonstrates a deliberate elfort to bypass the obligation to oFfer regular employment.

¶163

. 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 Iack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

¶164

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 stilt 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

¶165

commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

¶166

¶167

SN, ] wP 46922 202L

¶168

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 Acl, 1g47, and that they were enqaqed in essential. Derennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to oerpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municioal budget and m ti n h r m n r m rt n ration such concerns do not absolve the Emoloyer of statutory obligations or neoate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trumo the leqitimate riqhts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto regular roles for an extended oeriod.

¶169

The impuoned order of the High Court. to the extent thev confine the Apoellant Workmen to future dailv-waqe enqaqement without continuitv or nt^{nnfrrl hackr r,aara< ic trarahw <ai aci.la} it h fhc followinq directions:

¶170

L The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequencer the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶171

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective^{posts (or} posts

¶172

¶173

SN, J wP 46922 2022.

¶174

;rk n to the duties they previously perforr-ned ) within 'oui- weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence ( from the date of term i ati tn m r hall be counted for continui of service and all conseouential benefits, such as sen ioritv and elioibilitv for oro otions, if anv.

¶175

III. Considering the Iength 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 the ir reinstatement.

¶176

IV. The Resoondent Emolover is^rl irected to initiate a fair and transDarent Eirocess for r n A n rkmen within stx months from the date ofr el nstat ment. d u lv considerinq the fact that thev have oerformed p_erennial municioal duties akin te_ permanent posts. In assessing reoularization. the Emoloyer shall not impose edueational or^procedural criteria retroactivelv if such reouirements were never aDplied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarlv^{situated reqular emplovees- in} the^past. 'to the extent that sanctioned vacanr:ies for such duties exist or are required, the ResDondent Employer shall expedite all necessary ^r'l^{rtr i n i<tref i\ra} ttr.iaaccF< fa't ar'rcrrra fho s lonqtime eInj, oyees are not indefinitely retained on dailv waqes contrarv to statutorv a nd equitable norms.

¶177

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. "

¶178

L2. The Apex Court in a iudoment reoorted in⁽²⁰¹⁷⁾ 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148, in "State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others" at Paras 54 and its

¶179

¶180

sN, l \t"tP 46922 202L

¶181

sub-oaras^(1)(2)(3). of the said iudoment observed as

¶182

under:

¶183

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

¶184

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

¶185

(2) But if dailv waqers, ad hoc or contractual aopointees are not apoointed aoainst reqular sanctioned^posts and their services are availed continuouslv, with notional breaks, bv the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lonq^p eriod i.e. for 70 vears, such dailv waqers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reoular oav scale without anv allowances oa ihe assumption that work of oerennial nature is available and having worked for such lonq^period of time, an equitable riqht is created in such cateqorv of^persons, Their claim for reqularization, if anv, mav have to be considered separately in terms of leqallv oermissible scheme.

¶186

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be

¶187

¶188

SN, ] ',^,tP^{46922 2022}

¶189

entitled to arrears for a period of three^years and two months."

¶190

The iudqment of the Aoex Court rq'ported in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: "State of Karn;rtaka and others v M.L.Kesari and others", in^particular, Daras 4 to 9 re a d s-a^g-g o dC r!

¶191

The decision io State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was reDde[ed an l_0. 4.2006^(reported in 2006⁽⁴⁾ s c1) In that eass- 4-epnstiluljp-0-,-Eeneh of this Courr 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 6fis6rp1i6n, regularization or re- engagement 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, reqularization, 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 instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypas:;ing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

¶192

,,53. One asDectn ee to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular aDDointments (not illeoal aDDointments) as exDlai'ned in S. Y. NaravanaDDa f 7967 (7) SCR 7281, R.N. Naniundaooa f7972⁽ 7) SCC 4ogl and B.N. Nagaraian 17979⁽⁴¹ SCC 5O7l and_referred to in para 75 above. of dulv qualified pl:rsons in dulv sanctioned vacant^posts mioht have been made and the employees have continued to rk for

SN, ] wP 46922 2022

ten^years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The^question of reqularization of the seruices of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the DrinciDles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this iudsment. In that context, the Union of India, the Sfate Governmc,nts and their i n stru m enta I ities sho u ld take steDs to reqularize as a one-time measure. the services of such irreqularlv appoin ho have worked for ten vears or more in duly sanctioned Dosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts that reouire to be filled uo, in cases where temporary emplovees or dailv waqers ale ieiILq now emoloved. The orocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. ....

¶197

"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

¶198

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

¶199

(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,

¶200

(iii) Umadevi casts a dutv upon the coneerned Governm ento rt nstru mentalitv. to take steas to

¶201

¶202

5N, J ^P 46922 2022-

¶203

reaularize the services of t.hose irreaularlv aooointed I rved for more n without the benefit or^protection ol aDV iat?-rL-m odets of courts or tribunals, as a one-time, measure. Umadevi, directed that su h o ne-time nleirsure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 1O.4.2OO6).

¶204

The term^'one-time measure' has to be unoerstood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean l'-hat after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undeftake 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 year.s without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subjt:':t them to a process verification as to whether they are wctrking against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualifiration for the post and if so, regularize their services.

¶205

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily -wage,'zd^- hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts.^{,:onsequently,} several departments and instru menta lities did lot commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or ins tru menta lities undertook the one-time exercise excluTing several employees from consideration either on the grc'und 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 considered far regularization, 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 consider all daily -wagte/adhoc/those employees who had put in 70 years 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 vyho were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, a!; a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be

¶206

¶207

SN, ] wP 46922 2027

¶208

considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

¶209

The obiect behind the said direetion in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten^years of sentiLl.tous servise without the Drotection of an ln terim o rders of courts r tri unals before the dat f was rendered, are considered for reqularization in view of their lono servtce. e'cond ic ?o encure that the e rtments instrumentaliti do n^? ?ha ^aFna"..)t'oractice of employing persons on dailv-wase/adhoc/casual for lonq Deriods and then^periodicallv reqularize them on the^qro und that thev have served for more than ten vears, therebv defeatins the constitutional or statutorv^provisions relatino to ru n a a in nt. etr e fth direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 70.4.2006^(the date of decision in Umadevi) without the Drotection of anv interim order of anv court or tribunal, in vacant^posts, Dossessinq the requisite^{qualification,} are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of reoularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reaard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emplovees, the risht to be considered for reqularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure,

¶210

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

¶211

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general onetime regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casua l/ad - hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the

¶212

¶213

sN, l !F 46922 2027-

¶214

respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umade'ti. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶215

The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

¶216

Thr: iudoment of the Ao x Court in "tlari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra ;: nd Others" reported in AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 and in oarticular para Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

¶217

"100. The High Courts exercising their jur sdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the

¶218

¶219

sN, l wP _46922 _202t

¶220

power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise such Dower, where the Government or a oublic authoritv has failed to exercise o has urronqlv exercised discretion nitf statute or a rule or ti decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala de, or o irrelevant consideration,

¶221

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

¶222

This Court opines that the request of the petitioners for reg ularization of the petitioners services has to be considered in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above in view of the fact that the petitioners herean had put in more than a decade of service in the respondent department and the said fact had not been disputed even in the counter affidavit filed by respondent 35.

¶223

L7, This Court opines that the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.35 does not answer the material documents filed by the petitioners in support of petitioners case. The petitioners' are seeking regularization of petitioners services. The !earned

¶224

¶225

26 SN, ] \uP 46922 202L

¶226

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent tlo.35 orally objected the same on the grourrd that the posts had not been sanctioned to consider the petitioners' cases for regularization, this plr:a however had not been mentioned in any of the paragr;rphs of the counter filed by respondent No.35 in support of their ca se.

¶227

This Court ooines that the reouest of the petitioners for reoularization of petitioners services cannot be reiected on the oround that the^petitaoners had not completed minimum oeriod of 1O vears as on 12.O4.1994 thouqh admittedlv is borne on record. petitioners herein comoleted 1O vears of service as on the date of filinq of the^present Writ Petition-and hence are entitled for consideration of oetitioners cases for reqularization of^petitioners services as oer the observations of the Aoex Cou,rt in the case of State of Puniab and Others Vs. Jaqiit Sinqh and Other in particular at para No.54 and its sub-oaras ( 1)C2) and (3) (referred to and extracted above) and as oer the observations in the various iudqments of_ the Apex

¶228

¶229

5N, J wP 469)2 20)a

¶230

Court(referred to and extracted above), the oetitioners

¶231

herein are entitled for consi deration of Detitioners case for reoularization of Detitioners services and for consideration of oetition rs request to treat the temporarv services of the^petitioners in the last^qrade post of Bore well Mechanics (NMR Basis) as reqular one for all ourposes for^qrant of last orade^pav with periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the^petitioners.

¶232

This Court opines that^petitioners are entitled for consideration of^petitioners' case for^qrant of the relief as^praved for in the Dresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Apex Court in various iudqments r f rr n e r ed bove

¶233

20, Takino into conside rataon:-

¶234

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 9, 19 to 32 and 35.

<br>

SN,.] wP 46922 202L

c) The Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of^the respondent No.35 and in particular, Paragraptr Nos.s,6 & 8 (referred to and extracted above)

¶239

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

¶240

(i) 2025 SCC ONLTNE SC 1735

¶241

(ii) 2024 Lawsuit(SC) 12O9

¶242

(iii) 2025 rNSC 144

¶243

(iv) (2OL7) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148

¶244

(v) 2O1O(9) SCC 247 (vi) Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which had been .upheld by D.B. of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the Jrrdgment of Apex Court dated 09.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2O24

¶245

(vii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969

¶246

The writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in accordance to law, in the respective posts in which the petitioners are discharging duties in conformity with principles of Natural Justice, by^providing an opportunity of personal

SN, J wP 46922 202L

hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four (o4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and duly communicate the decisions pertaining to the request of the petitioners for regularizing the services of the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the Judgments of the Hon,bte Apex Court(referred to and extracted above) with all consequential benefits, However, there shall be no order as to cost.

¶251

The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

SD/.T.SRIDEVI

To,

ASSISTANT REGISTAR o

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad, State of Telangana,

¶260

2 The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶261

a The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶262

4 The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶263

q The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Kamareddy District. 6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Sangareddy District. 7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Siddipet District. o_ The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Jagityal District. 9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Medak District. 10 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Peddapalli District. 11 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar District. 12 The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kamareddy District. 13 The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sangareddy District. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddipet District.

¶264

15 The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jagityal District. to The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Medak District. lt The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Peddapalli District.

¶265

18 The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Karimnagar District. 19 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nizamsagar Mandal, Kamareddy District.

¶266

I i j i

¶267

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pulkal llandal, Sangareddy District.

¶268

21 . The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nangunur Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶269

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Siddipet tvlanCal, Siddipet District. 23. The l/andal Parishad Development Officer, Hathnura l,landal, Sangareddy District.

¶270

The [vlandal Parishad Development Officer, Jinnaram l\4andal, Sangareddy District.

¶271

25.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Korutla Mandal, Jagityal District26.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Andole lvlandal, Sangareddy District.

¶272

27.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Alladurg Mandal, Medak District. 28.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Regode ManCal, Medak District. 29.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kondapaka Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶273

30.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Malyala Mandal, Jagityal District31.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nagireddypet Mandal, Kamareddy District.

¶274