[ 3300l

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION NO:33597 0F 2017

Between:

1. P.Ashok Kumar, S/o. p.

Narsaiah, Aged about 4g years,

Occ L.V. Driver, Rio

_ f_l ]',1o.

8-2- 26gt192lA1, tndira Nagar, Banjara Hiils, Road ruo.2, HyJeraOai.'-

2. H.P. Sharma, S/o. M.R. Sharma, AgeO about 50 Vears, Occ Watthman, Rlo.

- 9

No 1-9-333/5, Hanuman Nagar, Rajendra Nagar, R.R. District.

,

[;jr,Trr.l,9b .l.l1g""h,

ngeo ab'out 49 yeirs,

Oc" Man Mazdoor (HR),

r(/o. H. No. 42483t21A,^.S.hjrrdi Hills, Anjaiah Nagar, Jagadgiridrtt;,

Qutubullapur Mandal, R.R. Diskict.

4. M. Veeraiah, S/o. M. Ramulu, Aged about 50

years,

Occ Watchman, R/o. H.

_

N,o 5-37i2, Gandhi Nagar, Rajen-dra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

5. M. Venkatesham, Wo. M_

parvathalu,

A--ged about 49 years,

Occ L.V. Driver,

^ Yo

H, No. 32, Vinayaka Nagar, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District

6. Poturaj Pentamma, Wo. poturaj

Muthyilu, Aged about 52 -years, Occ

Women Mazdoor, R/o. H. No. l-itl, Oirgna Kialij Khan, na;enOrr-irfagai

Mandal, R.R. District.

(The WP is dismissed as not pressed against petitioner No.6 as per Court

Order dt:24.07.2026)

7. A. Shankaramma, Wo. Late. A. Narayana, Aged about 51 years,

Occ

Women Mazdoor, R/ o. H.No. 1-22, Darga Khiliz Khan. naienOra-irfagai

Mandal, R.R. District.

8. G. Subbaraju, S/o. G. Ramchander Raju, Aged about S0 years,

Occ L.V.

Driver, R/o. Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. Oistrict.

9. P. sridhar, s/o. P. varadarajuru, Aged about 45 years,

occ work rnspector,

R/o. Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

AND

...PET|TIONERS

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal

Secretary, Finance and

-

Planning Department, SecretariatBuildings, Secietariat, Hyderabad.

2. The state of

_Telangana,

Rep. By its

principar

secretary, rrrigation and cAD

Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

JThe Director General, lrrigation and CAD, Department, Water And Land

ManagementTrainingAndResearchlnstitute(WALAMTARI),Himayathsagar,

Rajendra Nagar, HYderabad 500 030.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the

r:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased

to issue writ, order or Direction(s) more particularly one in the nature of writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the services

:f the Petitioners in their respective posts on par with the permanent Employees as

oeing illegal, improper, unjust apart from violation of Principles of natural justice.

LA. NO: 1 OF2017(WPMP. NO:41804oF 20171

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 regular salaries attached to the respective post in which the

petitioner continuous on par with regular employees and pending disposal of the

above Writ Petition.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

Between:

'1.

P.Ashok Kumar (Died)

Per Lrs.

2. HP Sharma, S/o. M.R. Sharma, Aged about 50 Years, Occ Watchman, R/o'

D. No. 1-9-333/5 Hanuman Nagar, Rajendra Nagar, R.R. District

3. P. Srinivas, S/o P. Lingaiah, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Man Mazdoor (HR),

R/o. H. No. 42483121A, Shiridi Hills, Anjaiah Nagar, Jagadgirigutta,

Qutubullapur Mandal, R.R. District.

4. M. Veeraiah, S/o. M. Ramulu, Aged about 50 Years, Occ Watchman, R/o. H.

No. 5-3712, Gandhi Nagar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District

5. M. Venkatesham, Wo. M. Parvathalu, Aged about 49 Years, Occ L.V. Driver,

R/o. H. No 32. Vinayaka Nagar, Hayathnagar Mandal, R R. District

6. Poturaj Pentamma, Wo Poturaj Muthyalu, Aged about 52 Years, Occ

Women Mazdoor, RJo. H. No. 7- 113, Dargha Khaltj Khan, Rajendra Nagar

Mandal, R.R. District.

7. A. Shankaramma, Wo. Late. A. Narayana, Aged about 51 Years, Occ

Women Mazdoor, R/ o. H.No. 1-22, Darga Khaliz Khan. Rajendra Nagar

Mandal, R.R. District.

8. G. Subbaraju, S/o G. Ramchander Raju, Aged about S0 years.

Occ L.V

Driver, R/o. Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

9. P. Sridhar, S/o. P. Varadarajulu, Aged about 45 Years, Occ Work lnspector,

R/o. Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R..District.

...PETITIONERS

10.Smt. Jyothi Wo. Late. P.Ashok Kumar, Aged about 40 years, R/o. D.No.8-2-

269 I 19 124 I A1, Indira nagar, Banjara H ills, Hyderabad.

11.P.Ajay Kumar S/o. Late. P.Ashok Kumar, Aged about 26 years, R/o. D.No.8-

2-2691191241A1, lndira nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

12. P.Sravan Kumar S/o. Late P.Ashok Kumar, Aged about 25 years, Hindu, Occ:

Private Service, R/o. D.No. 8-2-2691191241A1, lndira nagar, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad.

'13.P.Lokesh Kumar S/o. Late. P.Ashok Kumar, Aged about 16 years, Hindu,

Occ: Private Service, R/o. D.No. 8-2-2691191241A1, lndira nagar, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad. rep. by Natural Guardian P.Jyothi.

...PROPOSED PETITIONERS No.10 to 13

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and

Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD

Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Director General, lrrigation and CAD, Department, Water And Land

Management Training And Research lnstitute (WALAMTARI), Himayathsagar,

Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad 500 030.

...RESPONDENTS

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 pass orders

permitting the Petitioners herein to bring the LRs on record as Petitioner Nos. 10 to

13 as legal representatives of Petitioner No.1 in the above said Writ Petition No.

33597 of2017.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. A.MALATHI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

1

a

wp_33597_2017

N8K, J

IN THE IIIGH COURT FORTHESTATE OFTELANGANA

ATTIYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SRI.IUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAILA

WRIT PETITIONNo.33597 of20l1

05

th

Ausust. 2026

Between:

P. Ashok Kumar. Sio P. Narsaiah, and others

. . . Petitioners

AND

The State ofTelangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Finance & Ptanning Department, Secretariat Buildings,

Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others

. . Respondents

ORDER:

The case of the petitioners, precisely' according to the writ affidavit,

is that they have been serwing in the establishment of respondent No' 3-

Water and Land Management Training and Research Institute

(WAI-AMTAzu), a registered society declared as an autonomous body,

fuily funded and controlled, by the State Govemment, in various

permanent and essential posts. The petitioners comprise Mr. P. Ashok

Kumar, appointed as L.V. Driver on 01.06.1991; Smt. A. Shankaramma,

appointed as W. N{azdoor on 01.06.1990; P. Pentamma, appointed as W.

Mazdoor on 01.t2.1998; H.p Sarma, appointed as Gurka{V.atchman

on

01 .07 .1989; M. Veeraiah, appointed as Watchman on 01 .11.1992;G.

Subba

Rafu, appointed as ElectricianDriver on 01.02.i9g9;

M. Venkatesam,

a

2

wp 33591_20L7

NB(, J

appointed as L.V. Driver on 02.01.1989; P' Srinivas, appointed as M'

Mazdoor on 02.01.1989; and P. Sridhar, appointed as Work Inspecto'r on

01.05.1989. They state that each ofthem has rendered continuous and

unintemrpted service from the respective dates of appointment without any

break and has been performing duties of a permanent and continuous

nature.

1.1. The petitioners allege that although they have been paid the

time scales attached to their respective posts, they continue to be treated as

NMR/work-charged/daily wage employees instead of permanent

employees. They assert that they have been denied consequential service

benefits available to regular employees, including Arogya Sri, GPF, LIC,

and other attendant benehts, despite having rendered long Yearrs of

continuous service. The petitioners are apprehensive that such continued

classification as temporary employees until their retirement would

seriously prejudice their career.

1.2. The petitioners contend that despite the judgment dated

25.0g.1997 in W.P. No. 28096 of 1996 (the writ affrdavit also refers to W'P'

No. 28093 of 1996 in relation to the earlier proceedings), wherein this

Court directed consideration of their claim for regularization, the

respondents have failed to implement the said directions for more than two

decades. The petitioners therefore seek regularization oftheir services with

effect from 25.09.1997, conversion from work-chargedA{MR status to

permanent employees, payment of regular salaries attached to lheir

respective posts, and all consequential service benefits'

1.3. The petitioners further contend that the inaction of

Respondent No. 3 in failing to regularize their services despite the

judgment dated 25.09.1997 is illegal, arbitrary unjust, and contrary to

3

wp_33597_2017

NBK, J

public policy. They allege that the respondents have deliberately ignored

the binding directions issued by this Hon'ble Court for more than two

decades, without any justification. The petitioners further assert that the

respondents have acted discriminatorily by refusing to treat them on par

with permanent employees despite discharging identical duties and

redponsibilities.Onthesegrounds,thepetitionersseeka*ritdirectingthe

respondents to regularize their services from 25'09 1997' absorb them as

permanent employees instead of work-charged'/NMR employees' extend

regular pay and a1l consequential service benefits'

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3'd respondent' essentially

contending that the judgment of this Court in W'P' No' 28093 of 1996 dated

25,0g,|g97, did not confer an unconditional right to regularization' It is

contended that the courl directed that regularization could be considered

only if there existed a clear vacancy, the employee was within the

prescribed age limit at the time of initial appointment, and possessed the

re(uisite qualifications prescribed under the applicable rules' The

respondent therefore submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed as

the petitioners do not satisfi the statutory conditions governing

regularization.

2.1. It is contended that, in compliance with the judgment dated

25.0g.\9g7 in W.P. No. 28093 of 1996, the 3'd respondent-WALAMTARI

forwarded proposals to the erstwhile Govemment of Andhra Pradesh

through Letter dated 21.06.2004, followed by a further communication

dated 1.1.04.2005, placing the relevant facts before the Govemment for

consideration of the petitioners' cases. According to the respondent, the

Govemment examined the proposals but rejected the proposals,

vide

4

wp_33597 _2077

N8K, J

Memo dated 30.07.2005 on the ground that the petitioners had not

completed the mandatory five years of continuous service as on

25.11.1993, which was the basic eligibility criterion for regularization

under the A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and

Rationalisation of StaffPattem and Pay Structure), 1994 (Act2 of 1994).

It is therefore contended that rejection of regularization proposals was the

decision of the Government, and there was no inaction on the part of 3'd

respondent as alleged by the petitioners.

2.2. Referring to G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994, it is

contended that only Daily Wage, NMR or consolidated-pay employees

who had completed a minimum of five years of continuous service and

were continuing in service on 25.17.1993 could be considered for

regularization, subj ect to additional conditions. These conditions include

possession of the prescribed qualihcations, eligibility with respect to age

at the time of appointment, compliance with the rule of reservation,

relaxation of Employment Exchange sponsorship, and availability of clear

vacancies. In the case of work-charged establishments, where permanent

vacancies do not ordinarily exist, such employees could be adjusted only

against available Last Grade Service vacancies in other departments. The

respondent contends that none of these statutory requirements can be

ignored and that the petitioners admittedly failed to satisSr the essential

criterion of completing five years of service by 25.11.1993.

2.3. The respondent also invokes Section 7 of Act 2 of 1994,

contending that a daily wager or temporary employee has no vested or

deemed right to seek regularization and that such services are liable to be

terminated without notice or assigning any reason. It is further stated that

WALAMTARI became an autonomous body registered under the Societies

=1

5

wp_33597_2017

NBK, J

Act with effect fiom 01.04.1993, receives funding from the state

Government, and follou,s the Govemment Rules goveming recruitment

and regularization. Nevertheiess, the 3'd respondent submits that

WALAMTARI has been paying the petitioners the same initial salary as

employeesholdingsimilarpostsandperformingidenticalduties'thereby

a

complying with the applicable judicial directions regarding pay parity'

2.4. Rel,ving on the official records, the 3'd respondent contends

that the correct dates of appointment, and designations of the petitioners

are: P. Ashok Kumar, L.V Driver, entered WALAMTARI on 01'06'1991;

Smt. A. Shankaramma, W. Mazdoor, on 01'09'1993 instead of 01'06'1990

as claimed by the petitioners; Smt' P' Pentamma' W' Mazdoor' on

01.12.1988; H.P' Sharma, Gurkha Watchman, on 01'07' 1989; M' Veeraiah'

Watchman, on 01.01.1993 instead of 01'11'1992; G' Subba Raju' Auto

Electrician, on 01.02.1989 instead of Electrician'/Driver; M' Venkatesh'

Helper, on 05.08.1989 instead of L'V' Driver appointed on 02'01'1989; P'

Srinivas, M. Mazdoor, on 02.01'1989; and P' Sridhar' Work Inspector' on

01.05.1989. The respondent asserts that the petitioners have misstated

these particulars in order to suppofi their claim for regularization'

2,5. The respondent further explains that under a bilateral aid

programme, the Government of the Netherlands' through DIIV

Consultancy, a private foreign agency, provided technical assistance for the

Production Management Unit (PMU), which functioned from the premises

of WALAMTARI. Upon closure of the PMU, the equipment and vehicles

were transferred to WALAMTARI in accordance with the agleement

between the Governments of India and the Netherlands, while the staff

engaged by DHV Consultancy were disengaged. According to the

resfondenr, some of those individuars, incruding certainpetitioners,

were

6

wp_33597 _201.7

N8K, J

engaged by WALAMTAN only as and when their services were required.

Consequently, the respondent asserts that the period spent under DIIV

Consultancy cannot be treated as Govemment service and cannot be

counted for determining eligibility for regularization under G.O'Ms. No.

212 dated22.04.1994.

2.6. It is stated that the Govemment, through Memo dated

l2.O2.lgg2, directed the Director General, WALAMTARI, to disen[age

eight NMR employees who had neither completed five years of service nor

were protected by pending writ petitions. In compliance, WALAMTARI

issued Memo dated 20.03.1992,, giving one month's notice for termination

of the services of the employees at Serial Nos. 7 and 9 with effect from

23.04.1992 (aftemoon). Those employees challenged the action by filing

W.P. No. 4791 of 1992, and this Court, following its earlier decision in W.P.

No. 3031 of 1988 and batch dated 15.04.1993, quashed the termination

orders. Pursuant to that judgment, WALAMTARI implemented the

direction requiring payment of the same initial salary to employees with

two years of service performing identicai duties with effect from August

1993. Thereafter, the Govemment framed the regularization sctieme

through G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated22.04.1994, and WALAMTARI submitted

proposals by Letter dated 05.08.1994. The Government thereafter issued

proceedings including G.O. No. 4202815er.Y.2194-4 dated 02.12.1994,

G.O. Rt. No. 1060 dated 05.10.1994, and Memo dated 30.07.2005, under

which only those daily wage workers who had completed five years of

service as on25.11.1993 were regularized, while the remaining employees,

including the petitioners, were found ineligible. The services of eligible

daily wage workers were accordingly converted into the work-charged

establishment through Proceedings dated I 3. 1 0. 1 994 and 03 -12. 199 4.

I

7

wp_33597-2017

N8K,I

2.7 , It is contended that the petitioners' non-regularization was

only due to the Govemment's application of the statutory eligibility criteria

under Act 2 of 199 4 and G'O'Ms' No' 2 I 2 dated 22'04'1994' and not from

any deliberate inaction or arbitrariness on the part of 3'd respondent-

WALAMTARI.

2.8. The 3'" respondent further contends that the petitioners cannot

ciaim regularization merely because they have rendered long service' as

the length of serwice neither overrides the statutory requirements' nor

confers a lega1 right prohibited by Section 7 of Act 2 of 1994' The

respondent further contends that the petitioners have fumished incorrect

particulars regarding their appointments and have suppressed material facts

relating to their eligibility, thereby disentitling them to any discretionary

relief. On these grounds, the respondent prays that the writ petition be

dismissed.

3.' Heard Mr. P' Ravi Shankar, leamed counsei for the petitioners' and

Mrs. Annapuma, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Services-I'

appearing for the respondents. Perused the record'

4. At the outset, it is an admitted fact borne out by the record that some

ofthe petitioners were appointed as far back as 1988' 1989' 1990 etc' The

Govemment has formulated a Regularisation Scheme under G'O' Ms' No'

212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22'04'1994' proposing to

regularize the sen'ices of those individuals who have completed five years

or service by 2s.11.1993, and who satisfied the prescribed age and

qualification criteria at the time of appointment.

a

8

wp_33597 _2017

N8K, J

4.1. The petitioners herein, on earlier occasion, filed W.P. No.

28093 of 1996 before this Court, challenging the action of respondent-

Govemment in not regularizingtheir services under the said G'O' Ms' No'

272, dated22.04.lgg4.This Court, by Order dated 25-09.1997, allowed the

writ petition by observing that there should be clear vacancy against which

the petitioners could be absorbed, and they should be within the age limit

on the date they initially joined the service, apart from possessing the

prescribed qualifications as per the Rules. Further, with regard to vu.u'i"i"'

are concemed, this Court had also observed, based on the particulars in

para No.3 of the Reply Afiidavit dated20.06.1997 filed by the petitioners,

there were five vacancies of Work Inspector Grade-IV, three vacancies of

H.V. Driver, six vacancies of L.V. Driver, eight vacancies of W. Mazdoor,

and nine vacancies of Watchman; and that therefore there was no

impediment for absorption of the petitioners in regular cadre for which they

were eligible to be appointed.

5. Pursuant to Order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 28093 of 1996'

dated 25.09.1997, the 3'd respondent has addressed a letter to the I't

Govemment, vide Letter No. DG/WAL/WPEU/WC/ S N 25093 lg 6-,004

dated21.06.2004, for absorption of the petitioners, in compliance with the

orders passed by this Court.

5.1. In reply to the letter of the 3'd respondent, dated2l'06'2004,

the ls respondent-Govemment issued a Memo No.41639lSet.Y(l)12002-6

dated 30.07.2005, stating as follows:

"The attention of the Director General, WALAMTARI, Hyderabad is

invited to the references cited, and he is informed that the basic

criteria for regularization as per G.O.Ms.N o. 212 F&P DeparEnent

Dt]2804-1994 under Act 2/94, is completion of 5 years service as

I

9

wp_33597_2017

NBK, J

on 25-11-1993, inter-alia other conditions. The

,14

daily wage

workers have not completed 5 years of service as on 25-11-1993.

Therefore the cases under references cited cannot be considered

for regularization as per G.O.MS. No. 212 Dt. 224-1994.

2. Government after careful examination of the proposal in the

references cited hereby reject the same.

3. The Director General, WALAMTARI, is therefore requested to

issue speaking orders in the matter and inform to the individuals.,,

6. The grievance of the petitioners lies in a narrow compass.

Admittedly, they were engaged in a daily wage,NMR capacity in the years

1988, 1989 etc. Their cases for regularization were not considered by the

Govemment under G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated22.04.1994, on the ground that

they have not completed 5 years of serr.ice as of 25. 1 1 . 1993.

i. I

In this connection, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Jaggo vs. Union of Indiar, wherein the apex Court, by referring to State

of Karnataka vs. Umadevi2, held as follows:

"26. While the judgment in Umadevi (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 "irregular', appointments. lt categorically

held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged

in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more

than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one_

time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment

is

|

2024 INSC 7034

, (2006) Sec 1

a

being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to

indiscriminatelyrejecttheclaimsofemployees'evenincases

where their appointments are not illegal' but merely lack

adherence

to procedural formalities' Government departments

often cite thejudgment

in Umadevi (supra)to argue that no vested

right to regularization exists for temporary employees'

overlooking

the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases

where regularization

is appropriate' This selective application

10

judgment's spirit and Purpose,

it against emPloYees who have

wp_33597

-2017

NBK, J

effectively

rendered r

distorts

the

weaPonizing

indispensable

services over decades'

27. ln light of these Gonsiderations, in our opinion' it is

imperative

for government departnents 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

internationallabourstandardsbutalsoexposestheorganization

to legal challenges

and undermines employee morale' By ensuring

fair employment

practices, government institutions can reduce the

burdenofunnecessarylitigation,promotejobsecurity'anduphold

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."

8. Further, in Shripal v' Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad3' the Hon'ble

Supreme Court dealt with a case where the workmen therein had been

engagedasGardeners(Malis)sincearoundlggS-|gggandcontinuously

performedmunicipalhorticulturefunctionsSuchaSmaintainingpalksand

public spaces under the direct supervision of the Nagar Nigam' Their work

,

l

t

i

1

2025 sCC OnLtne 5C 221

a

11

wp_33597_2017

NBK, J

was perennial and integral to the municipality, and not seasonal. Despite

this, they were kept on daily wages, denied statutory benefits, and not

regularized. The Court held that requiring them to perform the same duties

as regular gardeners while keeping them on inferior terms amounted to an

unfair labour practice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"15. lt is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously

rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning

more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not

produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records -

despite directions to do so - allows an adverse inference under

well-established labour jurisprudence. lndian labour law strongly

disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in

circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and

legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year

after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,

particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At

this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique

of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a

recent judgment of this court in Jaggov. Union of /ndi# in the

following paragraphs:

'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. ln 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

a

,

institutions, entrusted with upholding the principtes

of fairness and justice, bear an even greater

re6pcirsibi,ity

to avoid such exploitatiye

,\

12

wp_33597 201.7

N8K, J

employment practices. When public sector entities

engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only

mirroE the detrimental trends observed in the gig

economy but also sets a concerning precedent that

can erode public trust in governmental operations."

9. In Madan Singh v. State of Haryanaa, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

by referring to State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesaris, held that pursuant to

the one-time measure granted in Umadevi (supra) for regularizalion,

certain departments were still in the process of regularising, and therefore

it is a sort of continuous process until all the persons who are intended to

.benefit under the orders in Umadevi (supra) are to be identihed and their

cases are processed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"19. Much emphasis has been placed on the aspect that despite

the policy of regularisation being required to be undertaken as an

"one time measure" as enunciated in paragraph 44 of the decision

in Umadevi (supra), the State Government sought to undertake

this exercise of regularisation belatedly and in a perpetual manner.

ln this regard, we may usefully refer to observations of this Court

in M L Kesari lsupra) wherein this aspect has been clarified. ln

paragraphs 5 to 8 ofthe said decision, it has been held as under:

"5. lt is evident from the above that there is an exception

to the general principles against

,regularization,

enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are

fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned should have

worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned

post without the benefit or protection of the

interim order of any court or tribunal. ln other

words, the State Govemment or its

instrumentality should have employed the

4

2026 SCC Online sc 528

s

2010 (9) SCC 247

a

a

a

13

wp_33597 2017

NBK, J

employee and continued him in service

voluntarily and continuously for more than ten

years.

(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.

(iiil tJmadevi casts a duty upon the concerned

Government or instrumentality, to take steps to

regularize the services of those irregularly

appointed employees who had served for more

than ten years without the benefit or protection

of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as

a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that

such one-time measure must be set in motion

within six months from the date of its decision

(rendered on 10.4.2006).

6. The term 'one-time measure'has to be understood in its proper

perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision

in lJmadevi, each department or each instrumentality should

undertake a one-time exercise and prePare a list of all casual'

daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more

than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and

subiect them to a process verification as to whether they are

working against vacant posts and possess the requisite

qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

a

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in ltmadevi,

cases of severar dairy-wage/ad-hoc/casuar

emproyees were stirl

a

L4

pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and

instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization

process. On the other hand, some Government departments or

instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding

several employees from consideration either on the ground that

their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversighl ln

such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be

considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi,will nol

lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because

the onetime exercise was completed without considering their

cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53

ol llmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all

daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of

continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection

of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. lf any employer had

held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 ol Umadevi, but did

not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to

the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should

consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time

exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all

the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para

53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is

two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than

ten years of continuous service without the protection of any

interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision

in lJmadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in

view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the

departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of

employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods

and then periodically regularize them on ths ground that they have

served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the

constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and

appointnent. The true effect of the direction is that all persons

who have worked for more than ten yearc as on 10.4.2006 (the date

wp_33591'2077

NB(, J

a

,

t

15

wp_33597_2017

NBK,.I

of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order

of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite

qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization' The

fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of

regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi ot lhal

such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited feu will

not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for

regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a

one-time measure."

l0.Viewedinthelightoftheaforesaidjudgments,intheinstantcase,

admittedly

the petitioners have been continuing in the 3'd respondent-

WAI.AMTARI

si nce 1 98 8, 1 989 etc., on daily wage basis' Admittedly they

have completed close to two decades of temporary service by 2006' which

is the date of umadevi (supra) judgment, and therefore they are undeniably

cotered by the orders passed in Umadevi (supra)' The respondent

authorities

cannot etemally continue the petitioners in a temporary capacity

as daily wagers, and cannot deny the service benefits. Therefore, as held in

Jaggo (supra). and Madan Singh (supra) the petitioners are legally

entitted to regularization of their services'

11. Further, with regard to the date of regul arization, it is relevant to note

the [an. laid dourr by the Hon'ble Supreme court, in a similar case

conceming regularization. namely, B. srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal

Corporation6,

and District Collector v. M'L' SinghT'

I1.1. B. Srinivasulu (supra) is a case where the employees

*J.tirg under the Nellore Municipal Corporation, approached the Andhra

a

6

(2027) 73 SCC 460

/

(2OO9) A SCC 4aO

a

16

wp_33597 _2011

NBl(, J

Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A. No. 9177 of 2011,

aggrieved by the action of the Municipal Corporation, in not regularizing

their services under G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994. The Tribunal

allowed the O.A., by order dated 01.12.2011., by observing as follows:

"ln these circumstances, as the issue involved in this O.A., is

squarely covered by the Orders in O.A.No.8095/2008, dated

19.1.2011 and as the applicants are entitled for regularization of

service w.e.f. 16.9.1992, '19.9.'1992, 14.6.1993 and 4.6.1993 on which

date they completed Five years of continuous service as per G.O.

Ms.No.2l2, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.4.1994, the

,

respondents are directed to regularize the services of the

applicants with effect from 16.9.1992, 19.9.1992, 14.6.1993 and

4.6.1993. But the applicants are not entitled for arrears of pay and

they are only eligible for notional fixation of pay and seniority. The

respondents are directed to issue orders, as per the above

directions, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt

of this Order."

11.2. The respondent-Corporation challenged the order passed by

the Tribunal, by filing W.P. No. 11852 of 2012 before this Court. The writ

petition was dismissed by Order dated25.04.2012. The Corporation then

filed Review W.P.M.P. No. 1 0968 of 2013. In the review petition, this Crourt

passed Order dated 03.04.2014 modiffing the relief as follows:

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct

the review petitioner/Corporation to regularize the services of the

unofficial respondents/applicants from the date of filing of the

Original Applications i.e. on 27.11.2O1'l for the purpose of fixation

of pay and notional without any monetary benefits subject to

availability of vacancies."

wp_33597_2017

NBK,.I

11.3. Challenging thc Order dated 03'04'2014 passed by this Court

inReviewW.P.NI.P.No.10968of2013(inWPNo.ll852of20l2),the

employees approached the tlon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave

Petition (Civil) No. 12432 of 2014' The Hon'ble Supreme Court' by Order

dated 17.08.2015' allora'ed the petition by directing as follows:

"ln the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned

G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal

belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified' ln the circumstances' the

appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing

that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the

date of their completing their five year continuous sewice as was

laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairpercon & Others

vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480'"

12. Considering the judgment in Umadevi (supra)' wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Coun directed fbr regularization of temporaq' workmen who

cofnpleted ten years by the date of the judgment' the eligibility of the

petitioners as on 10.04.2006 (the date of judgment in Umadevi (supra))

cannot be disputed. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to regularization

with effect from 10.04.2006 onwards'

13. Further. it is settled law as per the judgment of Hon'ble Division

Bench of this court in State of A.P. v. M. Raja RaoE and the Ilon',ble

Division Bench of High Court of A'P' in State of A'P' v' L'B'M' Krishnae'

wherein it was held that the service rendered prior to regularization shall

be counted towards qualiffing service for pension and retirement benefits'

3

wP No. 8201 of 2016

'gw.P No 1425 of 2019 (HiBh Court of A.p)

18

wp_33597 _2077

NB(, J

13.1. Therefore, the period of service rendered by the petitioners

from their respective dates of appointment (as recorded in their service

records), until 10.04.2006, shall be counted towards qualifying service for

pension and retirement benefits.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, by directing the respondent

No.1 to pass appropriate orders, within two weeks from today, regularising

the services of the petitioners with effect from 10.04.2006 onwards.'The

petitioners shall be entitled to only notional benefits fi'om 10.04.2006 until

the date of regularization orders, and they would be entitled to actual

monetary benefits from the date of regularization orders. The past services

rendered by the petitioners from their respective dates of appointment (as

per their service records) until 10.04.2006, shall be counted towards

qualifiing service for pension and retirement benefits. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above'

Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH'

ON this WEDNESDAY' THE TITiX OEV OT AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX

SD/- C. DEEPIKA

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,ITRUE COPY/I ,.,'-

(9-

SECTION OFFICER

to

',. ,n" Principal Secretary, Finance and

-Planning

Department' Secretariat

'

AuitOings, decretariat, Hyderabad' State of Telangana'

2. The Princip"r s""'"i"''i,'ilrfitg;. *-t cAb Department' secretariat

-

grilOing., S'ecretariat, Hyderabad' State of Telanoana'

3. rhe Directo, c"n",lt,'i;;;fi; *a' cno' D.eiartment w3]"t A*

llnd

Management T|.,lninJ'nna H"search lnstrtute (WALAMTARI)' Himayathsagar'

Rajen-dra Nagar, Hyderabad 500 030'

4 d;; ct to nlt-s n.uiRt-nrHl' Advocate [oPUC]

5. Two CCs to GP rontrivicis-r' Hiin Court for the State of Telangana' at

Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies

o

PSK.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0510812026

ORDER

WP.No.33597 of 2017

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

SE

\\1

Y

G:

.L

*

Fo

tlirtr

EAT

c

T

[u

P

il

q

D

,1

*

(ts

f,

(1

L)

t

0

lo