As per case facts, the petitioner, a temporary contingent Sweeper since 1978, worked for 44 years on a full-time basis but was not paid legitimate wages and his services were ...
,t32s2l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 26722 OF 2022
Between:
Md Yousuf, S/o lt/d. Khasim, aged about 61 years, Working in Temporary post
of contingent Sweeper in PS. Atmakur, Mandal Atmakur, Wanaparty District,
TS.
AND
...PET|TIONER
1. The State of Telangana, pp. by its Principal Secretary,
panchayathraj
Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and
planning
Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.
3. The District Collector, and Chairman of Selection Committee and Minimum
Wages Committee, Wanaparty District.
+. Ilg
Zilla Prala Parishad, Wanaparty District, Rep. by its Chief Executive
Officer.
5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparty
District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased
to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
lVlandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of
petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working Ircm 44 long years on full
time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment
dated 27-O1-1978, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16,
21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to
petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 1 5 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and
provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from time to time, to
pay living wages to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat
the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the .date of initial
appointment of 27-01-1978 by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon'ble
p
Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (201
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 33936 of 2r)
dated 02-05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by d:
High Court of A.P. in W.A.No. 483 ot 2021 dated 05-08-2021 tr
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 2018 Ape>
2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computatic r
to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits by rel,
monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical in
from time to time with
'100 percentage compensation as per p
Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.Nc.
and Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by :
principles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Divi
Article 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the car;r
3 (1) SCC 516) and
1 and Batch Cases
;ision of the Hon'ble
rsed on principle laid
Court, dated 23-03-
of qualifying servtce
,asing consequential
:rements, as revised
'inciple
laid by Apex
3416 - 3445 of 2010
>plying the aforesaid
;ion Benches under
of petitioner.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ rmstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct
the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by payin(t >n par with regularly
engaged last grade employees along with periodical increme nts as revised from
time to time as per the orders granted in l.A. No. 1 ot 2018 in V/
)
No. 38763 of 2018
dated 30-1 0-2018 in similarly situated case forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3 & 5: GP FOR SERVI :ES-ll
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRADEEP REDDY Kl TTA,
SC FOR MPP ZPP
The Court made the following: ORDER
w J
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PITION No.267220F 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for
Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3
and 5 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing
Counset appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.
2The oetitioner aDDroached thisCourt seekinq the
praYer as under:
"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the
Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular
one in last grade post for working from 44 long years on full time
even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per
appointment dated 27.01.1978, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary
and violation of Articles 14, 16,21, 39 (d),43 & 300 (A) of our
Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not
implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948
and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt Orders
from time to time, to pay living wages to petitioner and prays to
direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of the
petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of lnltial
appointment of 27.O7.797a by applying the decision and princlple
laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State
of U.P. (2019 (1) SC 516) and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court
in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02'05'2018
Et-
4
SN,J
\h'P 26722 2022
(2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decisior of rhe Hon,ble
High Court of A.P. in W.A.No.483 of 2027 dated 05 08.2021 based
on principle lald by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ir :.A.No.1254 of
2018 Apex Court, dated 23.03.2018 to reckon cor ingent services
of petitioner for computation of qualifying ser\/ :e to grant of
pension, gratuity and other retirement beneflt; by releasing
consequential monetary benefits in the last grac ( post including
periodical increments, as revised from time to t'ne with 100%
compensation as per principle laid by Apex Cou I in the case of
Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No.3416 - i445 of 2010 &
Eatch Cases dated 19.02.2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 S( 32) by applying
the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Hon't e Apex Court &
Division Benches under Article 141 of our Cons,itution by this
Hon'ble Court in the case of petitioner and pass,..'
3. Learned counsel aoearino on behalf ofIhe oetitioner
placinq reliance on the averments made in theaffidavit
filed in suDDort of thepresent writ oetitionrertaininq in
Darticular, to the services rendered bv oetiti( ner with the
resDondents herein for more than a decade( ontends that
h r is entitled for thetifa I ed for in the
present wrat petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD:-
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
4. Learned counsel aDDearino on bg half of the
petitioner submits that the subiect issue i_n the present
ry
5
SN,J
wP 26122 2022
case lssouarelv covered bv the order ofthis Court. dated
o8.09.2010oassed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7oorted in
2011( 1)LD. Paoe 234 asconfirmed in W.A.o.782 ot
2O1O, dated 1O.06.2013 andalso order, dated 19.O9.2O17
oassedin W.P.No.27217 ot 2Ot7 reoorted in 2O182) ALD
Paqe 22 and also the order, dated2L.O4.2O2O ossed in
W.P,NO.23057 of 2019 reoorted in 2o2o(41 ALD Paoe 379.
5. LearnstandinocounselaDt,earrnn behalf oftheoo
resDonent No.4 sumits that the ortevanceof the
etitioner at-forth in teresent Wr ion had
nddressedthe respondentsherein as on date and
therefore, the petitioner cannot comolain inaction on the
oart ofresoondents herein in considerinq the qrievance of
ition henceth tifas for b
etitioner in theDresent Witoetition c
D annot be qranted
no Man can be isedaalnshreso n
rnder aot for and itione be di
to Dut-rth the oetitioner's orievance as out-forth in the
nWrit Petin waofaetailed rresentati
to thresoondents herein and uoon receiot of thsaid
reDresentation, the resoondents wold consider the same
in accordance to law, within a reasonableeriod.
l
\
6
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
6. Learncounsel aooea rt nqon behalf of Iteetitioner
does not disoutethe said submission made bthe le! arned
standinq counsel aoorinq on behalfof therespondent
No.4
7. The Aoex Courtin the iudqment reporterl in (220) 1
scc (L) in PremSinoh v State of Uttar>radesh and
others, at oara 36 held asnder:
"36. There are some of the employees who hav( not been
regularized in spite of having rendered the servic:s for 30-
40 or more years whereas they have been super annuated.
As they have worked in the work-charged estt )lishment,
not against any particular project, their servic€: ought to
have been regularized under the Government I structions
and even as per the decision of this Court rr State of
Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court r the said
decision has laid down that in case services lave been
rendered for more than ten years without the cc rer of the
Court's order, as one-time measure, the se -vices
be
regularized of such employees. In the facts o, the case,
those employees who have worked for ten year; or more
should have been regularized. It would not b(, proper to
regulate them for consideration of regularizatiorr as others
have been regularized, we direct that their :;{ rvices be
treated as a regular one. However, it is made cle,r that they
shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of dil
,erence
in
wages had they been continued in service regu r rly before
attaining the age of superannuation. They shall I e entitled
to receive the pension as if they have retired_from the
reo u larestablish ment and the servtces reCeredbv
them riqht from the dav thev etered Ire work-
charoed establishment shall be
nsion. "
!
;!
_tua I ifva no
servtce for ouroose ot
counted as
a'li
7
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
8. The Aoex Cort in the case of DharwadDistrict PWD
Literate Dailv Waqe EmDlovees AssociatioVs. State of
Karnataka reorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 !aid orinciole
that the Stateshould not keeo a oerson itemDorarv or
orvice frl
oersons as reqular one.
9. Para No.53 o
ahave to trs
the of the iudqment of the Apex Court
he State of Karna and others Vs. Umadevi a
10.O4.2O06 reported in (2OO6) 4 SCC I is extracted
hereunder:-
"53. One asoect needs tobe clarified. There mav be
cases where irreoular aooointments (not illeqal
as exlained in S.V. r
11967 (1) SCR 1281. R.N. Naniundaooa 1L972 (1) SCC
409'l and B.N. NaoaraiantL979 (4) SCC 5O7l and
referred to in oara 15 above. of dulv oualified oersons
in dulv sanctioned vacant Dosts miqht have been
made andthe emolovees have continued to work for
ten vears or more but without the intervention of
r thcourts or of tribunals. Theu n
atioof the services of sucem
e considered on merits in the !ih ht
cis settled bthis C
abovereferred toand in the liqht of this iudoment. In
that context, the Unionof India, the State
Governments and thelrtnstrumentalities should take
larize as ane-time measureth
tuch irrelarl n whhav
worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned posts
but not under coveroforders of the courts or of
tribunals and should further ensure that reqular
rqcluitmeots are undertaken to fill those vacant
+
\-
8
SN,J
wP 26'122 2022
sanctionedDosts that require to be fillec
!_ up, in cases
where temDorrvmolveesordailwaqers aree
betnnow emoloved.The process mu! t be set in
motion withan six months from this date.
10.The iudoment of theADex Coudated20.L2.2024,
reDod in 2024LawSuit(C) 12O9 inJao rr Anita andl
othev. Unionof India and others, and .hereleva n't
Da raqraphNos.12, t3, 24,26,27 and 28e extracted!
hereun{elri
"12. Despite being labelled as "part'time
workersr" the apPellants performed :hese
essentia! tasks on a daily and conti t ruous
basis over extensive periods, ranging from
over a decade to nearly two decades. Their
engagement was not sporadic or tempor rry in
nature, instead, it was recurrent, regul;r , and
akin to the responsibilities tyJ ically
associated with sanctioned posts. Mot over,
the respondents did not engage any other
personnel for these tasks durinrl the
appellants tenure, underscoring the
indispensable nature of their work.
13.
were
The claim bv the respondents thaE these
not reoularosts lackserit,is the
nature of the work permed bI the
aooellants was oerennial and fundameg tal to
the functioninq of the offices.The re :urring
nature of these duties necessitates their
classification as regular posts, irrespective )f how
their initial engagements were labelled. It s also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing ()l these
same tasks to private agencies after the ap I lllants'
termination demonstrates the inherent ne ed for
these services. This act of outsourcing which
effectively replaced one set of workers with ; nother
{
7
9
SN.J
wP 26722 2022
further underscores that the work in question was
neither temporary nor occasional.
24- The landmark judgment of the United State
in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97
F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent
example from the private sector, illustrating the
consequences of misclassifying employees to
circumvent providing beneFits. In this case,
Microsoft classified certain workers as independent
contractors, thereby denying them employee
benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact,
common-law employees and were entitled to the
same benefits as regular employees. The Court
noted that large Corporations have increasingly
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees
or independent contractors as a means of avoiding
payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing
their profits. This judgment underscores the
principle that the nature of the work performed,
rather than the label assigned to the worker, should
determine employment status and the
corresponding rights and benefitsIt hiqliqhts
theiudicia's rolern rectifvinqsuch
mtsclassifications andensurino that workers
recetve fair treatment.
26. 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 u lar" appointments.
Itateqoricallv held that emolovee tn
I rreqular aooointmentswho wereenoaq ln
ned a had rve
contnuouslv for morethan tenvears sould
beconsidered for reqularization asa one-lme
measue.However, the laudable intent of the
ly
of
judgment is being subverted when institutions re
on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims
a
l@!!=
\- -t-' !
\.
\'
'':
.'
10
employees, even in cases where their appoint r
are not illegal, but merely lack adhererr,
procedural formalities. Government deparl r
often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supr
argue that no vested right to regularization
for temporary employees, overlooking
judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases
r
regularization is appropriate. This selg
aDplication distorts the iudqment's spiril
puroose, effectively weaponizinq it ar
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
emolovees who have rendered indisper
'lents
eto
rents
e) to
:xists
the
lhere
ctive
and
rinst
;able
)
!
services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, il
opinion, it is imperative for goverr
departments to lead by example in providin
and stable employment. Engaging workers
temporary basis for extended periods, espr
when their roles are integral to the organiz:
functioning, not only contravenes intern,t
labour standards but also exposes the organi:
to legal challenges and undermines emgrl
morale. By ensuring fair emplolr
practices, government institutions can re
the burden of unnecessary litigation, pro
job security, and uphold the principle
justice and fairness that they are me:rr
embody. This approach aligns
international standards and sets a pc,r
precedent for the private sector to f,l
thereby contributing to the overall bette'
of labour practices in the country.
i. The termination orders
27 .10 .2018 are quashed;
our
ment
I
fa ir
on a
cially
:ion's
:iona I
atio n
oyee
nent
d uce
note
sof
rt to
with
itive
llow,
ne nt
2A. In view of the above discussion and firr ings,
the appeals are allowed. The impugned c rders
passed by the High Court and the Tribunal Ere set
aside and the original application is allowed t ) the
following extent:
lated
The aooellants shall be ! lkenll,
back forton dutv hwhand their
11
SN,J
wP 26'722 2022
servlcs reqularised forthwith.
However, the aooellants shallnot be
entitledto anv Decu n ta rv
benets/back waes for the oeriod
thev have notworked for but would be
entitled to continuitv of servies for
the said oeriod andthe same wuld be
counted for thetrDost-retiralbenefits."
11. The Judqment of the Aoex Court dated 3.01.2025
reDorted in 2O25 INSC L44 in "SHRPAL AND ANOTHER v.
NAGAR NIGAM,GHAZIABAD", iN OArticular, thereleva nt
ra No are ext hereunder
"15. It isanifest that the AooellantWorkmen
continuouslv rendered their selces overevera I
vears. sometames soanninq more than a decade. Even
if certain musterrolls were not oroduced in ful!, the
Emolover'sfa ilureto furn ish such records-desDte
directions to do so-allows an adverseinference
under well-established!abour iurisorudence.Indian
labour law stronqlv disfavrs Deroetual dailv-waoe or
contractual enqaqements in circumstances where the
work isDermanent in nture. Morallv and leoallv.
workers who fulfil onooino municioal reoirements
eafter nnot be dimt smarila
disoensable, oarticularlv ithe absence ofqenurne
contractorqreement.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:
1l
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporar r employment
contracts, as exemplified in this c.: e, reflects a
oroader systemic issue that adversely ii.Fects workers,
rights and job security. In the private s:ctor, the rise
of the gig economy has led to ar increase in
precarious employment arrangerl lnts, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job-se r urity, and Fair
treatment. Such practices have beerr criticized for
exploiting workers and undermining lat,r ur standards.
Government institutions, entrusted-witt, upnoiOing tne
principles of fairness and justice, bear ar even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitativ( employment
practices. When public sector entitie s engage in
misuse of temporary contracts, it not o^ y miriors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy Out
also.sets a concerning precedent that"ctr r eroJe public
trust in
governmental operations.
12
SN,J
V\'P 26722 2022
of "TemDOratv"LablsI Emolovees
25. It is a disconcerting reality ft r t temporary
:Tl]oy-":r,
particularly in governmerrr institutions,
otten face multifaceted forms of explt tation. While
the foundational purpose of temporaiy , ,nl-.t. ,uy
have been to address short-term o. s<,, sonal-neeOs,
[ey lave
increasingly become a mech,r rism to 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long_terr r obligations
owed
.to
employees. These prac-tices; maniiest in
several ways:
o Misse
eqao
drworkthatlsessetierrecrflnct,
and inteqraltothefunctionrnq otarinstitutio nJ
E
onlalle e
t
onrct
heof
isassica
evwnth
u elo
nde v
or
mtrror
s Such
softhe
rvora
r lles
rka
diqnitvscuritv,nd benefitstla qular
elo arentled toeite_ performino
identical tasks.
. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary e r ployees are
frequently dismissed without curre o. n,,i.u, ir ru"n
in the present case. This practice unc ermines the
principles of natural justice and subjects ,o.k"., to u
13
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality
or duration of their service. . Lack of Career
Progression: Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises.
They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
sig n ifica nt.
. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, eFfectively replacing one set of
exploited workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a
deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances."
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's
inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently,
it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some
measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only
perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were
left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While
the High Court recognized the importance of their work and
hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them
continuity of service or meaningful back wages
commensurate with the degree of statutory violation
evident on reco rd.
)
t4
SN,J
wP 26',t22 2022
L7. In light of these considerations, th: Employer,s
discontinuation of the Appellant Workm: I stands in
violation of the most basic labour law princill es. Once it is
established that their services were term r ated without
adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the -,p. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were_ enqaoed in
essential, oerennial dutis, these worke:r s cannotbe
releoad to oeroetal uncertaintv. Whil,concerns of
5
municipal budoet and comoliane with_ recruitment
rules meritconsiderationsuch conc do notrns
absolve theEmoloverof statutorv o b lioations or
neoate eouitable entitleents. Ineed, lureacratic
limitatons cannottrumD the itimarl
workmen who have served continuousl
v
e riohts of
in de facto
reoular roles for an exended oeriod.
18. The imoned order of theioh t: rurt, to theuo
extent thev confine the ApoellantWorkrr en to futu re
dailv-waoe enqaqement without crt rtinuivor
meantnqful back wqes, is herebvseta5 ide with the
ino direcrons:
I. The discontinuation of the Appell;rt Workmen,s
services, effected without compliance vu th Section 6E
and Section 6N oF the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, is declared illegal. All orders or c: nmunications
terminating their services are , quashed. In
consequence, the Appellant Workmen st all be treated
as continuing in service from the rate of their
termination, for all purposes, includin(y seniority and
contin uity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall -einstate
the
Appellant Workmen in their respective : )sts (or posts
follo
ry
t5
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
akin to the duties they previously performed) within
four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their
entire oeriod ofabsence (fromhe dateof
termination untiI actual reinstatementshall be
counted for continuitof service and al!
conseo u entialbenefits. such as snioritv and
eliqibilitv for promotions, if anv.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant
Workmen shall be entitled to 50% 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.
IV. The ResoondentEmolover is dircted to
in itiatea fair and transoarent Drocessfor
reo u la rizinqthe Aooellant Workmenwithin six
from t e rei nstat dul
considerino the fact tht thev have oerformed
perennialmunicioalduties akin to permanent
Dosts. Inassessinq reqularization, the Emolover
all not e educa rocedu
criteriaretroactivelv if such reouirementswere
never aolied to the ApDellant Workmen or to
similarlv situated reqular emolovees in the oast.
To the extent that sanctoned vacanciesfor such
dutiesxist or are reuired. the ResDondent
loer ex neces
administrative Drocesses to ensurethese
lonotimemolovees are not indefinitelv reta ined
on dailv waoes contrarv to statutrv and
eouitable norms.
19. 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."
t2. The Ax Courttnaiudomentoorted in (2o17) 1
)
Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs
T]
t6
SN,J
wP 26122 2022
Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and il ssu b-pa ras
"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, wl
upon the above controversy had concluded, L
employees were not entitled to the minimum of l,
scale, merely for the reason, that the activities
daily-wagers and regular employees were similat.
however, made two exceptions. Temporary emy.l
in either of the two exceptions, were held entitlea
minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular e
exceptions recorded by the full bench of the H,g
impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
le adjudicating
1at temporary
rc regular pay-
carried on by
The full bench
>yees, who fell
o wages at the
nployees. The
h Court in the
"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual a.)ointee against
the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed ,z ter undergoing
a selection process based upon fairness , nd equality of
opportunity to all other eligible candidates,: hall be entitled
to minimum of the regular pay scale fr: n the date of
engagement.
(2) But if dailv waqers, ad hoc o' contractual
appointees are not aopointed ac,iinst reoular
are availed
continuouslv, with notional breaks,_)v the State
Government or its instrumentalities l'< r a sufficient
<anr-ti.anad ,,arcf< an.l fhafu <arwiac5
lono oeriod i.e. for 7O vears, such da
hoc or contractual aooointees shall
!
I
v wasers. ad
e entitled to
minimum of the reqular oav scale_ without any
allowances on the assumption that wolk of oerennial
nature is available and havins worked for such lonq
period of time, an equitable risht is u ?ated in such
cateoorv of oersons. Their claim for re1 ularization. if
anv. mav have to be considered seoatittelv in terms
of lesallv oermissible scheme.
(3) In the event, a claim is made for miri num pay scale
after more than three years and two month; of completion
of 70 years of continuous working, a daily tzger, ad hoc or
contractual employee shall be entitled tc arrears for a
period of three years and two months."
13. The iudoment of the Aoex Court reDort( 20109
State of Karnataka ascc 247between: 1d others v
(1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed as uI der:
7
l7
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
M.L.esari andothers.oa rticu Ir, Daras4to9reads as
under:
4.The decisioninState of Karnatakav. Umadevi was rendered
on1.4.2006 (Dorted i2006 G)SCC 1).In that c,ase, a
Constitution Bench
without following
appointment did n
of this Court held that appointments made
the due process or the rules retating to
ot confer any right on the appointees and
courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re_
engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 ot the
Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,
regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment
had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutionat
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 instrumentatities, nor lend
themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further hetd
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 Coutt however made
one exception to the above position and the same is extracted
below :
"53. One as needsto be cla There mav be
casewhererreqularDDointmets (not
i,llesal
en s.v. n
7967 CR m. ,v 7
9 .Na 79 cc
rred ra f ualifi'
Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant oosts mioht have
beenade and the emoloveeshave continued to
work forten vearsor morebut without the
INtervntion of ord,rs of thetts or of tnals.
The ouestion of reoularization ofthe servicesf such
emoloes mav have to be considered onrits in
the lisht of theorincioles settled bv this Court e
s fe din
,
f
it ulanrent.n ih2?con tha I ftrrtla
jho
,
StafeGovernmen and thei,r instrumen
ouldkcste ular,
talities
a one-firno
measule, the serviof such ularlv aooointed,,
who have wo'kedfor ten vears or more dulvr,
sancted Dosts but not underver of ordersof theI
courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that
reoular
18
SN,J
\yP 26'122 2022
cruitments erendertakeq to fillthose
t sanctioned ooststhat reouirelo be filled uo.vacan
,n casesere temDorarv eDloveesr dailvwaoersI
are beinq now emOYed. The ss rrusf be set in
motionwithin six monthsfrom this da
"5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception
to the general principles against
'regulariza
ar' enunciated in
Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilted :
(i) The employee concerned shoutd have worked for 70 years or
more in duly sanctioned post without the benefi- )r protection of
the interim order of any court or tribunal. In t.her words, the
State Government or its instrumentality shoulc have employed
the employee and continued him in service rcluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should nct be illegal, even
if irregular. Where the appointments are not ma le or continued
against sanctioned posts or where the persons d,tpointed do not
possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, tt ? appointments
will be considered to be illegal. But where the p'rson employed
possessed the prescribed qualifications and was vorking against
sanctioned posts, but had been selected withou. undergoing the
process of open competitive selection, such ac )ointments are
considered to be irregular.
, m
overnmn
the servi
cas U concerned
to takey to reoularize
\
um
of those irreoularlvaDDointed .nolovees who
had serued for more than ten vears without.the benefit or
protectionof any interim orders of courts or
'ribunals,
as a
uch one-timeone-time measure. Umadevi, directed that 1
measure must be set in motion within six mgnths from the
te sron don oo6
6. The term
'
one-time measure' has to be u.t
proper perspective. This would normally mear
decision in Umadevi, each department or eact.
should undertake a one-time exercise and pregt,
casual, daily-wage or ad hoc emptoyees who ha r
for more than ten years without the interventic t
tribunals and subject them to a process verificatio
they are working against vacant posts and possrt
qualification for the post and if so, regutarize thei.-
7. At the end of six months from the date of deci.;
cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual emptc
lerstood in its
that after the
instrumentality
re a list of all
t been working
of coutts and
r as to whether
ts the requisite
;ervices,
cn in Umadevi,
rees were still
-*8l&r
l9
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
pending before Courts. Consequentty, several departments and
instrumenta rities did not commence the one-time regurarization
process. On the other hand, some Government depiftments or
instrumentalities
under-took the one_tiie iiirir" excluding
1?veral
employees from consideration either on- the ground thit
their ca.ses were pending in courts or due lo si;hier oversignt. n
such
.
circumstances, the employees *no *iri-
"ntitted
to be
considered in terms of para
53
'of
the decisiin- in Umadevi, witt
not lose their right to be considered for ijiUiirutior, merely
because the one-time exercise was Zoipteted without
consi.lering
.
their cases, or because the sj/x' month period
mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one_time
exercise should consider att daity_wage/adioc/those
employees
wh.o had put in 10 years of corlinroir'r",iii" ii on ru.a.2006
t:i.tjiout.avlling the protection of any iniirii-ira"r, of courts or
tribunals. If any emptoyer had neia tni ori ti*" exercise in
terms of para 53 of umadevi, but did not consiie,r the cases of
some emproyees who were entifled to the benefit of para 53 0,f
Umadevi, the emptoyer concerned shoutd consider their cases
also, as a continuation of the one-tim"
"*iirir".-
fne one time
exercise will be concluded onty when a the emptoyees who are
entitled to be considered in teirms of para
53 of-iiadevi, are so
considered,
8. Theob beindthesaid ontDara53 of
mavt -foFi,,seureat wh
hvetI th fnouserv
w,ithouttherotionof anvrnmrdeofurts or
rtab e ,on
n id, la ofnv, elr
loo SecondIs esureth ef
de fsstru litied,no tut
ail ad-
en
c elo e sn
hoc /casualforonoDen andthen odi,llv
rt e n da
o anen
tmt.
rovton
It
on
fa
forula
ke
th
ren
s
of
evt
u
ve
u
rutenan
nltha
aon
tt,
or I
can
a
e
I
e e
lssoverke
o.4 'he,a
tede
r
tn
h nun
I on
wa
of
r
h
a
e
v, atch
lx
no en
n
s em
o
n
tn
...,.,,.-.1
::s-:-r::rrattttxt lli:i rl
20
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
< n in terms of
l e measure.
9. These appeals have been pending for more
-han
four years
after the decision in Umadevi. The Appeilant (Tila panciayat,
Gadag) has not considered the cases ol espondents o)f
regularization within six months of the decisio"t in umadevi or
thereafter.
10. The Division Bench of the High Court has l rected that the
cases of respondents should be considered in i ccordance with
law. The only fut-ther direction that needs be g. ren, in view of
Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat,
Gada 7 shoutd now
undertake an exercise within six months, a ge,leral one_ time
regularization exercise, to find out whethter tier: are any daily
wage/casual/ad-hoc emptoyees serving the Zita f tnchayai and if
so whether such employees (inctuding the respo.t lents) fulfilt the
requirements mentioned in para 53 of lJmadev . If they fulfill
them, their seryices have to be regularized. If ; tch an exercise
has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitt ng the cases of
respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendincy of tt
=se
cases, then
their cases shall have to be considered in continu, tion of the said
one time exercise within three months. It is nee.,ess to say that
if the respondents do not fulfilt the requirement: of para 53 of
Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. I the employees
who have completed ten years service do rt, t possess fhe
educational qualifications prescribed for the posl, at the time of
their a_ppointment, they may be considered for i:gutarization in
suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of act irdingty.
L4. In the iudqmentof theAoexourt in NiI al Sinoh and
hersStaofPab o ln13 sc65,the
Supreme Court considered the case of .r ,sorption of
Special Police Officers appointed by the S tate, whose
wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal t reir services
were made available. It held that the mere fac t that wages
were paad by the Bank did not render ilr I appellants
'employees' of those Banks since the appoi ntment was
1
! r-!.Er
v
2l
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
made by the State and disciplinary controt 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 relationship, its action is arbitrary. It
also refused to accet the defenthat thereere no
sa nctioned oosts andso there wa i ustificationfor the
State totilise services ofae number of oeoole like the
aooellanfor decades. It hld that "sanctioneoosts do
not fall from heaven" and thatthe State has to cate them
conscru eonth of some n
assessmet of need. Referrinq to Umadevi. it he!d that the
aooellantsbefore them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their
aointme of an 'irre aointme
een made inc nce with orroced
orescri bedunder the Police Act. 1861-nd the State
a
Irtnothehaarel frrsathrthaw not entitlt arl ia haar
bed intth s of the St rment bar
as, accordinq to it. theiraDDointments werepu relv
temoorarv andnot aqainst anv sanctioned oosts created bv
evi cannotthe State.Itwas held that the iudment in Umad
'l
n 'I
n
l
22
SN,J
\vP 26722 2022
become a Iicence forexoloition bvthe S tate and its
instrumentalities andneitherthe Governmr1rt of Puniab
nor those oublic sectoBanks cancontinue su ch a oactice
witthenstitution.
15. Thetudoment of the Aoexurt reoortecin 2015 Scc
Online SC 1797betwen B.Srinivasulu and otersv Nelloret
Municioal Coroo rationReo.bvits Commtssr1ner. Nellore
a Pradesh and others. inDa rt
11 :ular oaras 7
District, Andhr
and 8reads asnder:
(7) find it d'ifficult
acceDtthe reasonin(adoted bvL the
HiqhCourt.The rioht ofthe aDoellants fo set reqularization
flowsfrom theG.O. No.212 dated22.4.19.TtaooellanI t have
beenln servtce of the first reondentnot aty-prior to theL
lssuanof theid G.but e subse LLIbe-Eslts eI
n9 a statutory
) of the above
lmost 20 years
and continued
G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality b.
body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Insp,t
mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for i
without regularising the service of the appellant:
to extract work from the appellants.
8. In the circumstances, refusing the benef: of the above
mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appelle.tts approached
the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not t tstified. In the
circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying , he order under
app.eal
-by
directing that the appellants, service: be regularised
with effect from the date of their compteting their five year
continuous service as was laid down by this ( curt in District
Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh 8 Ors. 2009 (8)
scc 480.
16. InAmarkaItt Rai v State ofBihar rEDor ed20LI
me Court
(
scc 26s.hesUDre held that ''l re objective
inconsistent with their oblioation to function ! r accordance
ltry
".t
23
SN,J
w 26722 2022
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 ittegal, and to ensure securitv of
th sow hasedeSte
tm
ovmta rltruntiest rreann
rs"fnatsem eeasor f,29ear
isdts a
extracted above.
roveeaervwereed M esar
L7fn Staef Jarhanvmal Pradro tn
oL47
sre
cc23similrvt
ertaditshdallo
w asken b e
I,vreofeca IoflcaIdinoof faonthe
renn ou
he tin
uat
Ise
n e
m th o
e
I
cotinuouslverere. t,e leoalociolelaid downbv
th u U easeSfaofna v
53
c,
iv.
sden
nB
ottn
ti,to
h
n
rtsrttl
4 7oocc
se Th
thth
s
ad,
a
chft,
n ,
wtbv t,is Court."
18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6,.LZ.ZO2Z
passed in W.p.No.21602 of 2O19 which pertains to
regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha
Swamy Temple, yadadri,
Natgonda District, which
.r.
24
SN,J
\'P 26772 2022
had been upheld by the Division Bench rf this Court
in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2t1 23 and also
confirmed by the order of Apex r )ourt dated
09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.
19. The iudqment ofthe Aoex Court in_ {ari Krishna
Mandir TrustV.State of Maharashtraand OtI ers reported
in AIR 2O2O SuoremeCourt 3959 and in piI'ticular para
Nos.lOO and1O1 held as follows:
"100. The High Courts exercising their juri diction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not )nly have the
power to issue a writ of mandamus or in :he nature of
mandamus,butare dut-boundto e: ercisesuch
DOvver, wherethe Government oraDulic aut horitv
has failedto exercise or haswron exercise
discretion conferred uoonitbvasatut€; or a rule, or
a oolicv decision ofthe Government orasexercisedt
such discretionala fide.orol i rreleva nt
considration.
101. In all such cases, the High Court must ssue a writ of
mandamus and give directions to compel perf trmance in an
appropriate and lawful manner of the discr: .ion conferred
upon the Government or a public authority.,,
2(). The Division Bench of this Court in its JuEoment dated
10.o6.2013Dassedin W.A.Nos.782 oJ201(l and854 of
20L2whileuDholdino theJudqmentdaterJ.o9.210
Dassed inW.P.No24377 ol 2OO7 an (
servdasder:-
dc.c.N.44of2o8
Y
25
SN,J
\NP
26722 2022
"Fufther, it is manifest from the material on record that the
services of the similarly placed persons who approached the la /
Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporation also issued
various oFfice orders/circulars dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992,
06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of
casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25-T
of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or
workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases
on hand. engaging the respondents for such a long and
continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair
labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID
Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of
the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to
regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned
single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in
the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not
warrant interference in these appeals."
2L. The Divisionench of this Court in its Judoment dated
19.09.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2Ol7reoorted in
2O18(2)ALD paoe 282 at oara 16 and Dara18 observed as
under:-
*16.
It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is
binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the
judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the
provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated
22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while
denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f
persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-
bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public
posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/regula rization
of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10
years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State
Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is
presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as
Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212,
dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the
judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made
any exception in favour of the States where State enactments
bannlng reg ula rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of
ot whittlet994 andG-O- Ms.No.212.dated 22-4.L994do
26
SN,J
wP 26't22 2022
down thewidth and the iudoent inMat iula Bashini's
case (suora), does not lowerthe traictorvof the(
directions issued bvthe Suoreme Court inPara 53 of its
vi's case (suDra). It is. therefore, notiudoment in Uma De
oermissible for the resDondents to takeshe lter under Act
2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. N0.212, dated 22.2!
Y
1.994, to denv
:, admittedlv,reoularization to the oetitioners, who ha
satisfied the criteria laid down an Para No.53 ofthe
udment in U 's cases
18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, rl ,ted 27 .6.20t7 ,
in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribune I is set aside and
the writition is allowedith the di3ctionto the!
resoondents to consider reoularisation ofle services of!
the Detitioners aqainst the exstinq vacar cies of Work
ectors and
a laid dow
t them s ! satisfvinq the
I rment in UmaNo.53 of
Devi's case (suDra). This oess must ,e cooleted
within two months from the date ceilof a coov of2
this order, "
22. The Division Benchofthis Court in its Ju( qment dated
2L.O4.2020jassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1rf 2019 and
W.P.No.23O57 of2O19 reoorted in2O2O(4)ALI oaoe379 at
Daras 45, 48 and paraJ0 observed as under:-
"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have l):en working on
daily wage since 1990 and have put in almo:J (30) years of
service by now. They have been given minimum ime-scale from
the year 2000. They have been continuously work ng without any
Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.
48. It isnot known whv the 1st resDorr lent has not
tollowed the decision in UmaDi's ca:;, r (supra), as
ned in M sari's I undertaken a
one-time exerctseofDreDartnthe listf dailvwaoec
emolovees who had worked formore thansn (1O) vearsI
without the intervention of the Courts and
'['ibunats
as on
10.4.2006 and subiect them to a process v€! ification as to
whethr thevare workino aoainst vaca1rt oosts and
oossess reouisite qualifications for the oos
reoulrtzethetr serces.
ts, and if so,
27
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowedthe impugned orders
dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the
cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time
basis are declared as illegal,arbitrary and violative of Articles 14
16 and 21 of the Constitutlon of India; the respondents are
directed toreou lartze onon e-time basis oetitioners'
servrcesfrothe date eachf the oetitionerscomDlee10
vearsofservtceon dailv wqes frothe inldatta sof
their aooointment. But, thevshall nbe entitled toanv
one liee sarercrsshall bonethin
(2)weeks fom thedate of receiDt of coov o
23. This CourtoDrnesthat inthe presencase,the
ftheoer."
resondens failedto discharqe their dutin examininov
request of the petitioner for reqularization of Detit
the
io ner's
services, who isworkinqas parttime sweeper and frther
coner hi ue tthe torarervtof
theDetitioer tnhe lastqradeost of Darttime st weeper
as reqular one for alI ourooses bv orntino last orade Dav
with periodicalincrement revised from timeto timefrom
the date of apDointment of the oetitioner. in accorda nce to
law.
24. ThisCourtoDines tat oetiloner rsentitled for
consideration of oetitioner's case for qrant of the relief as
aedrln ret Wrietitiln vleft
rvations AoexCourt iva rao uiudoments
obs
erto
of the
ed eahe vieft
l
l
l
28
SN,J
wP 26722 2022
DivrsronBenchof this Coulnthe Juqmenl s referred to
d extractabove.
25. Takino intoconsideration: -
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances o1, the case.
b) The submissions made by the lear ted counse!
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and lear 1ed standang
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4.
c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various
judgments (referred to and extracted abovr ) and again
enlisted below:
i)(2o2o) 1 SCC (L&S)
(ii) 19eo(2) SCC Page 39G
(iii) 2o2s rNsc 144
(iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9
(v) (2017) l scc 148
(vi) 201o(9) scc 247
(vii) (2013) 14scc 6s
(viii) 2O1s SCC Online SC L797
(ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s
(x) (2014)7 scc22s
(xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024
(xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 39G9
(xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1
(xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234
(xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282
(xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379
d) The Division Bench order of this t:ourt dated
10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7B2 of 2010 and 854 of
2012 while uploading the Judgment daterl OS.O9.2O1O
29
SN,J
wP 26't22 2022
passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8
(referred to and extracted above),
e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated
Lg.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O17 (referred to
and extracted above),
f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated
2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and
W.P.No.23O57 ol 201-9 (referred to and extracted above).
S) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at
as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order.
The Writ Petition is allowed, theetitioner is directed
to put-forth theclaim of the petitionerforeq u la rizaion of
itioner'rvtces the mf the loner
rat th mora rvices o etitr in the
q radeoost of Sweeper as reqular one for allDU TDOsbv
q ra ntino last qrade Dav withoeriodical icrements revised
ttoe from tdate of aooointmentofttim he he
fromtme
petitioner and all consequentiatbnefits, dulv enclosio all
thelevant documents in sooort of oitioner's case as
out-tthinte Dresenwrit oetition. within a oerldof
30
SN,J
wP 26i22 2022
uEFl
orernthIodtsha mlenrlconsider the
sametnaccordancetolw, IncnformitvirDflncioh lesof
natu raliustivrovqanoDDO
ce idin
he tthtitin
rt
mtrdsassedbvt
uit,I of oersonal
t
l) e
ue
Pe
cuinUDev rt 2006(4)se
L scc
edmntae
1.:i77of20o7
datedo8.09.20rOreDOrtedin20111)ALD,t:aqe34and
asconfirmedinw.A.No.782of2o10dated10,t6.2O13I and
alsoasoerDivisionBenchJudqmentofthisCoudated
19.o9.2017passedlnw.P.N27217of 20o,
,_ reoorted in
2018(2)ALDDAqe242andasothDl!'t sronBenh
JudqmentofthisCourtdted2.o4.2020ase
.I.A.Nos.l
of 2O20 in 1 of 2O19 in W.p.No.23!
'5720r9f
oe 2o4LD e37 hirrd aarnd
1 the date of
receiDtofacopvofthisorderdulv1 akinotnto
hA
xa
oidraon th sev
exCrt inhe var
ted aveand
nt ofthAexCoutn
tiondhlaid down bv
s
ouu n fr3 'redtoand
culrara N.53 o
( Ithe
u
caf StaC teof
vt an c
!
,t:.I I
Kan
m du ntehe decrs!n
one (O1) week from the date of receipt c,J copv of the
t
31
SN,J
/P
26',722 2022
to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition,
shall stand closed.
SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFTCER
One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA
(For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal)
to
',. tn" Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department' Telangana Secretariat'
Hvderabail, State of Telangana'
r The princioat secretari,"r'i'nl'nie ano Planning Department, Telangana
Secretariai, Hyderabad, State ot lelangana'
..
3. The District cor rectJi"a ni'e'h;1n ;-"iSelection Com m ittee and M i ni m um
Waoes Committee, Wanaparty ulstncl'
4 ii,?Ei' ;iE;;;;ti J": di+i;5i,' Zta C i ii
-p
^ri
shad' wanapa rtv District'
5. The Mand al
parisrraidei"eio-p*"ni 6m""r' Atmakur Mandal' Wanaparty
District.
6. 11 LR CoPies.
;. il;u";;; iecretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and companv
Affairs, New Delhi-
B.TheSecretary,TelanganaAdvocatesAssociationLibrary,HighCourt
r
t"H':t8Ei'"?$i3ff
to*..n, Advocate roPUCl
10.Two CCs to Gp rOn si-nVrbES-rr,-UiSti bourtiorthe State of Telangana, at
Hvderabad lOUTl
11.Ohe CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA' SC FOR MPP ZPP IOPUCI
12.Two CD CoPies
PSK
b/
6
HIGH COURT
DATED:0811012025
ORDER
WP.No.26722 ot 2022
CC TODAY
C
1,
a-
tL
l- \''
()-
t
,s
)(
q.f
ll:
'.:.-:.::i.;
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
1
t)
tl)9
A
n
Legal Notes
Add a Note....