132521

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRITPETITION NO: 16S98 OF 2023

Between:

1. P. Ramesh, Sio Peddulu, aged about 50 years, Occ. Pump Operator, Khammam

Municipal Corporation, Khaminam, Khammam. District.

2. G. Naga Raju, S/o Nagaiah Satyanarayana, aged about 49 years, Occ.

pump

Operator, Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam, Khammam District.

3. K. Prabhakar, S/o Yalaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ. Pump Operator, Khammam

Municipal Corporation, Khammam, Khammam District.

4. Ch. Ramababu, S/o Venkaiah, agd about 46 years, Occ. Lekage Worker,

Khammam. Municipal Corporation, Khammam, Khammam District.

5. P.Sudhakar, S/o Peddulu, aged about 46 years, Occ. lekage Worker, Khammam

Municipal Corporation, Khammam, Khammam District.

6. K. Srinu, S/o Nageswara Rao, aged about 46 years, Occ. Likage Worker,

Khammam Municipal.Corporation, Khammam, Khammam District.

7. B. Ramakrishna, S/o Venkateswarulu, aged about 46 years, Occ. Pump Operator,

Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam. Khammam District.

8. Devarakonda Ramu, S/o Prasad, aged about 46 years, Occ. Pump Operator,

Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam, Khammam District.

9. P. Guru Murthy, S/o Lalaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ. Pump Operator,

Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam, Khammam District.

'10.

Ellendula Ramesh, S/o. Yadagiri, aged about 46 years, . Occ. Pump Operator,

Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam, Khammam Elistrict.

11.S. Rama Krishna, S/o Yellaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ. Pump Operator,

Khammam Muncipal Corporation, Khammam, Khammam District. 1

AND

...PETITIONERS

1. The Khammam Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Cor missioner, Khammam,

Khammam District.

2. The Commission and Director of Municipal Administrati,> r. State of Telanagana.

A.C.Guards, Hyderabad,

3. The State of Telanagana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, l A and UD Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The State of Telanagana, rep.by its Principal Secretar'/

:inance

and Planning

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

.RESPONDENTS

Petition urlder Article 226 of the Constltution oJ lncli

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High {)

issue. a Writ or Order, more particularly one in the nature of Wr

the records relating to the impugned Proc.Roc.No.C'l 134312023

(

the 1st respondent wherein rejecting claim of the petitioners ft

pretext they did not similarly placed persons to the judgment rr

No.2276 lo 2278 of 2014 dt.18-09-2.019 despite they were beirg

accordance with the judgment in W.P.No.9330 of 1999

W.A.No.709 of 1999 preferred by the respondents Which was tl

above SLP as such is totally incorrect, unfair, unjust, unwaTre

irrational, and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia

and consequently old that the petitioners being similarly plac

petitioners in W.P.No.7896 of 2006 and batch dt.30.03.2008 e

decision to the W.P.No.9330/1999 are entitled to regularizationr;

with the counter parts in the above SLP with all mnsequential b:

r praying that in the

)urt may be pleased to

lof Mandamus, call for

t26-05-2023 issued by

r regularization on the

Apex Court in SLP(C)

continued in service in

It.25-07-2008 against

e subject matter in the

rted, misinterpretation,

,nd set aside the same

:d persons and being

s it was a covered by

3f their services on par

refits.

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu nstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be : eased to direct the 1st

respondent to re-examine the claim of the petitioners for regulari.l rtion by suspending the

impugned Proc. Roc.No.C1l343l2l23 dt.26-O5-2O23, pending c i ,posal of the main Writ

Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SMT R.MADHAVI LATHA, SC FOR MCPL

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV.

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING

The Court made the following: ORDER

J

SN,J

u,P 16998 2023

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI I.I \NDA

WRIT PETITION No.16998 OF 20: 3

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, lea rned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners, imt.R.Madavi

Latha, learned Standing Counsel appearingl on behalf of

respondent No.1, Iearned Government Pleader for

Municipal Administration and Urban Development

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and

learned Government Pleader for Finance rnd Planning

appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4.

2. The oetitioners aDoroached this seekinq the

praver as under:

Cour!

"...to issue a writ, order or direction mor:

in the nature of Writ of Mandamus call for the r:

the impugned Proc. Roc. No.C1 /343/2023 dt.26.C:

the 1't respondent wherein rejecting clalm of t-

regularization on the pretext they did not

persons to the judgment oF Apex Court in SL.l

2278 of 2014 dt.18.09.2019 despite they were

in service in accordance with the Judgment ir

1999 dt. 25.O7.2OO8 against W.A.No.709 of 19

the respondents which was the subject matter i

as such is totally incorrect, unfair, unjus

misinterpretation, irrational and violation of /\

particularly one

:,: rds relating to

.2023 issued by

l petitioners for

;imilarly placed

(C) No.2276 to

being contin ued

W.P.No.9330 of

)9 preferred by

r the above SLP

-, unwarranted

ticle 14 of the

ORDER:

4

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently

hold that the petitioners being similarly placed persons and being

petitioners in W.P.No.7896 of 2006 and batch dt.30.03.2008 as it

was a covered by decision to the W.

p.

No.9330/ 1999 are entitled

to regularizations of their services on par with the counter parts

in the above SLP with all consequential benefits and pass such

other order... "

3. Learncounsel aDDearinon behalff the

Detitioners Dlacino reliance on the averments made in the

affidavt filed in suoort of theresent writetition

nlnlnrticulartohe servi endered

itionerwthe resnts hereinfre than

decadesntends th titionersaIeentitled fortheat the n

relief aspraved for in the Present writetition.

4. PERUSEDTHE RECORD:-

(A)The order imDuqned dated 25.O5.O23 issued

the ltt esonden vte Pro

.c13432023 titin herein

extracted hereunder:-

.PROCEEDINGS

OF THE COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION KHAMMAM

PTCSCNT: SRI ADARSH SURABHI IAS

/343/2023

PEAKING ORDER

e

Proqs.Roc.No.Cl

s

n

Dt: 26-05-2023

5

Sub:-Khammam Municipal Corporation -Establi:; ment-

W.P.No.14902 of 2O2l filed by Sri.P.Ram,: rh S/o Peddulu

and( 10) others -individuals are not eligib ( to be

considered for their servlce regularization- Speaking

Orders- Issued,

Ref:- 1)Hon'ble High Court Orders In 74902 of 2(. I Dt:

10.01.2023 filed by Srl.P.Ramesh and (1()

')thers.

2) This oFfice letter addressed to the Directc,t of Municipal

Administration Lr. Roc.No. C|/KMC/343/2( 213 Dt:

24.O3.2023.

3

) Directo r of Municipal Administration

Roc. No.356062 /2021/ A3 Dt: 12.05.2023

SN,J

wP t6998 2023

r the counsels,

o. 1 to consider

:e with laws, in

earlier orders

and batch and

Of this Court in

rg the cases of

e orders, as

a period of

a copy of this

ORDER:

The Hon'ble court has disposed the W.P.l\lr .14902 of 2O2L

Dt:10.01.2023 filed by Sri.P.Ramesh S/o Peddulrr rnd (10) others

as follows:

"In view of the rival submissions made by bc t

thrs court is inclined to direct the respondent I

the case of the petitioners, strictly in accordart

terms of G.O.Ms.No, 212 and in view of tl r

passed by this court in W.P.Nos.93330 of 1999

also the observations made by a Division Benct-.

W.A. No.709 of 2009 and batch, by duly verif,r

the writ petitioners and pass appropritr'

expeditiously as possible, preferably withi^

twelve( 12)weeks from the date of receipt 01'

order".

The Petitioners herein approached the H()

to extend the benefit of the Judgment passed ir

2OO9, whereas the Commissioner, Khamr

Corporation aggrieved by the orders of the Hon':

approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the I

Court whlle dismissing the SLP(C) No.2276 t,r

further held that "Since the above order is passe,j

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the caso,

r'ble High Court

W.A.No.709 of

ram Municipal

e High Court in

7.09.2013 has

on'ble Supreme

2278 of 20t4

k:eeping in view

l-his order may

6

SN,J

wP t6998 2023

not be treated as a precedent in any other case. In view of above

all applications including application for impleadment/lntervention

shall also stand disposed of.,,

The fact that, the Writ Appeals orders passed in

W.A.No.709 of 2009 and batch were challenged and carried to the

Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLp(C) No.2276 to 2Z7B or 2014 was

not brought to the notice of the Hon,ble High Court by the

petitioner in w.p.No.14g02/2021 for the reasons best known to

the petitioner.

This Commissioner Khammam tvunicipal Corporation has

filed SLP against the Writ Appeals 7O9 of 2009 and batch, the

Hon'ble Supreme court speciFicaly mentioned that the orders not

be treated as precedent in any other case, in view of such

observations by the Hon,ble Supreme Court as such, the claim of

the individuals in terms of W.A. No.709 of

necessary to be considered as a precedent.

2009 may not be

In view of the clarification issued regarding the orders of

the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.A. No.7O9 of 2009

consequent observations of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in

SLP'S filed against the orders passed in W.A.No.709 of 2009, The

Commissioner Khammam Municipal Corporation has come to a

conclusion that the individuals are not eligible to be considered

for their service regularization. Accordingly speaking orders are

issued.

Commissioner

Khammam Municipal Corporation,,

and

the

7

SN,J

sr'P 16998 2023

(B)The averments of counter afficl, rvit filed on

behalf of the 1't resDondent, in Darticula ', oata 7 .s

extracted hereunder:-

"7. It is further submitted that, as

G.O.2l2 dt.22.04.1994, the petitioners he

completed the required 5 years of continuou

the cut of date i.e., 25.11.1993 as

G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994; as

petitioners are not eligible to be consider

regularization. "

rer the above

-ein have not

; service as on

prescribed in

;uch all the

:d for service

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of lfre petitioners

mainly puts forth the following submissions:

(a) The impugned proceedings dated 26,( 5.2023 of the

1't respondent rejected the claim of the f etitioners for

regularization of petitioners services on the grounc :hat the Apex

Court in SLP (C) No.2276 to 2278 of 2014 held, i its Judgment

dated 17.09.2013 preferred against the order dat rd 17.09.2013

passed in W.A.No.709 of 2009 and batch, that the ()rders not be

treated as precedent in any other case and thereFore the

petitioners are not entitled for the relief as e:( ended to the

appellants in W.A.No.709 of 2009 and batch datect 17.09.2013.

8

SN.J

wP 16998 2023

(b) The respondents are duty bound to examlne the case

of the petitioners for regurarization dury taking into consideration

the long length of service rendered by the petitioners herein.

(c) The petitioners had been working as contract

workers, pump operators and Leakage workers in the Khammam

Municipality since 1994 onwards and the long length of service

rendered by the petltiollers c_a[not be ignored.

(d) Hence the case of the petitioners has to be

considered and the order impugned dated 26.05.2023 needs to

be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the 1sr

respondent herein.

7 earn unsla arrnon beh fthf

etitiersubmithtthsub etsuarel

covedthderthiou ted5.4.25 sed

in W.P.No.37938of2O21.

8. Learned Standing Counse! Smt.R.Madhavi Latha,

appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute

the fact that the order impugned dated 26.05.2O2g needs

to be set aside in view of the fact that the case of the

petitioners had not been examined individually duly

conducting inquiry

documents of

and duly examining the retevant

the petitioners case and

9

SN;J

wP t6998 202i

unilaterally request of the petitioners for rerr tularazation of

their services is rejected and therefore, the ratter should

be remitted to the 1=t respondent herein for

reconsideration of the subject issue in accotl lance to law.

9. The Judqment ofthe ADex Court date .2025

ivil Aeal N 18 rerrted in 2025

SCC ONLINE SC 1735 in"Dharam Sinqh i ndOthers v

State of U.P. and Another", in particular, thr2relevant Dara

Nos.13. 1718, 19 and 2O are extracted her,eu nder:

"13. As we have observed in both .laggo (Su

(Supra), outsourcing cannot become a con\/

perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep

r

practices where the work is inherently

Commission's further contention that the appella

time" employees but continue only by virtue of i1

does not advance their case. That interim protec

precisely because of the long history of eng,:

pendency of the challenge to the State's ref

creates rights that did noL exist nor erases entitl

arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality cf

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary t

State (here referring to both the Union

governments) ls not a mere market pi

constitutional employer. It cannot balance budr;

of those who perform the most basic and

functions. Where work recurs day after day an j

the establishment must reflect that reality I

strength and engagement practices. The long t€

regular labour under temporary labels corroc r

public administration and offends the promise ol'

Financial stringency certainly has a place in publ

not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason

organise work on lawful lines.

rra ) and Shripal

rnient shield to

l ir engagement

perennial. The

rts are not " fu ll-

.erim orders also

:ion was gra nted

)ement and the

rsals. It neither

)ments that may

those refusa Is.

r recall that the

and the State

ticipant but a

:ts on the backs

recurring public

year after year,

its sanctioned

rm extraction of

s confidence in

rqual protection.

: policy, but it is

rnd the duty to

\

l0

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism"

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 14, 16 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 ru n n ing.

"19. Having regard to the Jong, undisputed service oF the

appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the

material indicating vacancies and comparator reg u la risations, we

issue the following directions:

i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All

appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.O4.2OO2,

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/Attend ant/c ua 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 regularization as given above.

ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall

be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and

admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for

the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for

the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of

regu la rization/retirem ent/death, as the case may be. Amounts

already paid under previous interim 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.

l1

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

ii i, Retired aooellans: Anv aooellant wlr has alreadv

retired shall be qranted reqularizatrron wh effect from

rtion for oav24.O4.2OO2 until thdate of suDerannl.r

I

i

fixation, arrears uner clause(ii). and rl calculation of

pension, qratuitv and other terminal dur,l. The revised

pe nsron and terminal dues shall be oai! within three

months of this Judoment.

iv. Deceased aDDellants: In the case of r! rpellant No. 5

and any other aooellant who has died d rr.;inq oendencv,

his/her leqal reoresentatives on record sl' i ll be oaid the

arrears under clause (ii) uo to the date ofe eath. tooether

with all terminal/ retiral dues recalculatr: I consistentlv

wath clause (i), within three months of this .! rdoment.

v, Compliance affidavit: The Principal : rcretary; Higher

Education Department, Government of Uttar I radesh, or the

Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selectir,r Commission or

the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of

compliance before this Court within four months : ' this Judgment.

20. We have framed these directions omprehensively

because, case after case, orders of this Court n such matters

have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "rt:onsiderations,"

and administrative drift which further prolongs , e insecurity for

those who have already laboured for years r n daily wages.

Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such : rses cannot rest

on simpliciter directions, but it demands imtr )sition of clear

duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable corr rliance. As a

constitutional employer, the State is held to a tigher standard

and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a

sanctioned footing, creare a budget for lawful <: gagement, and

implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow

these obligations is not mere negligence bu, .ather it is a

conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoo<l and dignity for

these workers. The operative scheme we rave set here

comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, fr I regularization,

subsequent financial beneflts, and a swcr r affidavit of

compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to c: tvert rights into

outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in c qagement and

transparency in administration are not matte[ of grace, but

obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of th: Constitution of

India.

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment reportcijI in (2O2O) 1

SCC (L&S) in PremSinqh v State of Uttar

others. at Dara 36 held as under:

_ Pradesh and

t2

SN.J

wP 16998 2023

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been

regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30_

40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated.

As they have worked in the work-charged establishment,

not against any particular project, their services ought to

have been regularized under the Government instructions

and even as per the decision of this Court in State of

Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said

decision has laid down that in case services have been

rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the

Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be

regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case,

those employees who have r,r1o1(eg[ for ten years or more

should have been regularized. It would not be proper to

regulate them for consideration of regularization as others

have been regularized, we direct that their services be

treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that

they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference

in wages had they been continued in service regularly

before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be

entitled to receive the pension as if theyhave!'etired

th lar shm h tce

rended bv themrioht from the dav thevntered

h rk-h eslint sh on

orra Ifvtno scrvaefortU TNose ofDenion. "r

8TheADex Courtin the case of Dharwad DistrictPWD

Literate DailvWaqe Emolovees Assocition Vs.State of

Ka rnataka reoorted in 1990(2)SCC Paqe 396 laid orinciDle

that the State shouldnot keeD a orson in temDorarv or

adhoc se or lonq Derd and have totreat such

Dersons as reqular one.

9 ara N hefth EAex

Karnataka and others Vs. Uin the State o madevi, dated

rv

l3

SN.J

wP 16998 2023

1O.04-2OO6 reDortedin (2OO6) 4 SCCtis extracted

hereu nder: -

"53. One asDectneeds to be clarified. The:re mav be cases

where irreo ular aooointments (not illeqaa Doot ntments)

as exolained in S.VNaravanaooa [ 196,I (1) scR 1281.

R.N. Naniundaooa 1L972 (1) scc d B.N.

Naoarajan [1979 (4) SCC 5O7I and referrl d to in para 15

above, of duly oualified oersons in dulv s:1 ned van

ts mihhv athe e'nDtoves have

qoEtinyed.to work for ten vears or more_,ut without the

interventin of orders of the courts or (rtribunals. The

d r racf ;ri ri aC taarrlarizationf q rices of such

emolovees mav have to be considered o r meriin the

lioht of the DrinctDs settled bv this co

abovereferred to and in the lioht of this ir

context, the Union of India, the State Gq vernments and

their instrumentalities should take steos

t

! rt in the cases

L loment. In that

a one-time measuthe services of

o reoularize as

rch irreqularlv

.!

t

aoDointed. who have worked for ten vear!more rn

sanctioned Dosts but not under cover <I orders of the

!:r ensure that

'i ll those vacant

courts or of tribunals and should furtl

reqular recruitmentsare undertaken to

sanctioneDosts thatreuire to be fillg l uo, in caseso

where temoorarv emolovees or daily w,1 rers are beinq

nowemDved. The oro€ess mst be set i! motion within

six months from this date.

10. The iudoment of the Aoex Court datr: IL2.2024

reDortedin 2024 LawSuit(S12O9 in laqo Anita andc) (

others vUnion of India andothers, anrl thereleva nt

paraoraph Nos,12, 124, 26, 27 and 28 areextracted

herend er:

'12. Despite being labelled as "p;r.t-time

workers," the appellants performed these

essential tasks on a daily and continuolt ; basis

over extensive periods, ranging from rver a

decade to nearly two decades. Their enga! ement

t4

SN,J

wP 1699E 2023

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.

T13. he claim bthe resDondents that these

were not reoular oosts lacks merit. as the nature

of the workerformed bv the aDDellants wasD

perennaal and fundamental to the functionino of

the offices. The recurring nature of these duties

necessitates their classification as regular posts,

irrespective of how their initial engagements were

labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent

outsourcing oF these same tasks to private agencies

after the appellants' termination demonstrates the

inherent need for these services. This act of

outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of

workers with another further underscores that the work

in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

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 correspondlng rights and benefits. It

hiohliohts the iudiciarv'rolein rectifvino such

m isclassifictions and ensurino tat workers

receive fair treatment.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought

to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure

l5

reqularization as a one-time measure, I

the laudable intent of the judgment is being r;

when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscr i

reject the claims of employees, even in case

tieir appointflents are not illegal, but me r

adherence to procedural formalities. Gov

departments often cite the judgment in L r

(supra) to argue that no vested right to regLl

exists for temporary employees, overlook

judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cas:

regularization is appropriate. This :i

aDolication distortsthe iudoment's sc,i

27. In light of these considerations, in our o

is imperative for government departments to

example in providing fair and stable emo

Engaging workers on a temporary basis for r

periods, especially when their roles are integ

-

organization's functioning, not only con

international labour standards but also exF(

organization to legal challenges and unclr

employee morale. By ensuring fair emp.l

practices, government institutions can re C

burden of unnecessary litigation, pront

security, and uphold the principles of jusr'l

fairness that they are meant to emboc

approach aligns with international standir

sets a positive precedent for the private r;,

follow, thereby contributing to the

betterment of labour practices in the cour[

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

appointments adhered to constitutional princit es, it is

regrettable that its principles are often misirt rrpreted

or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of lor c serving

employees. This judgment aimed to di, tinguish

between "illegal" and "irregular" appoi tments.

It cateooricallv held that employees in t! reqular

appointments, who were enoaoed [ 1 dulv

sanctioned posts and had served continu,l rslv for

more than ten vears should be consid

_€ red for

puroose, effectivelv weaponizinq it _ aqainst

emlo ve renred i )nsable

services over decades.

owever,

bverted

ninately

s where

:ly lack

l rn ment

ra Devi

rrization

ng the

;where

rlective

'it and

,inion, it

lead by

)ym ent.

xtended

I to the

ravenes

ses the

rm ines

)yment

Jce the

tte job

ice and

y. This

'ds and

tctor to

overa ll

ry,

28. In view of the above discussion and indings,

the appeals are allowed. The impugned order.: passed

by the High Court and the Tribunal are set ;r: ide and

the original application is allowed to the lrllowing

extent:

t6

i. The termination

27.10.20L8 are quashed

;

orders dated

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

ii, The appellants shall be taken

back on dutv forthwith and their services

reqularised forthwith- !leweyer.

aDoellants shall not beentitled to anv

naat I naFuh6n6ltclback wa

?tes fortfr a

hhave not worked

would be entitled to continuitv of

ntforhe saiderro

d r nd +ha c:rrraf

would be countedfor their Dost-

retiral benefits."

11. The Judqment of the Aoex Court dated 31.01.2025

reDorted in 2O25 INSC t44 an'SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v.

NAGAR NIGAM GHAZIABAD". in oarticularhe relevantt

oa raNos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:

'15. It is manifest that the Aooellat Workmen

contin uouslvndered their services overseveral vears,

sometimes soannino more tan a decade. Even ifcertain

muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the EmDlover's

r furnish rI

-des

ntod

so-allows an adverse inference under well-esta blished

ruflsru Inian labo w ron

disfavors oerDetual dailv-waoe orcontractual

enoaqemnts in circumstances where thework is

nentn M iland le rkr rsw

ntn ments er

nnarfira Amted sum dis ble

ula r habsence of a co

aoreeent. At thisjuncture, it would be appropriate to recall

the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment

fl

17

SN,J

wP t6998 2023

practices as done by a recent judgement of thi, court in Jaggo

v. Union of India in the following paragr.3phs.

"22. The pervasive misuse of tc.mpo'

contracts, as exemplified in this c;:se, ,r

systemic issue that adversely afFe(:ts w l

.;ob security. In the private sector, th:

economy has led to an increase in preca'

arrangements, often characterized by la,:

security, and fair treatment. Such prac

criticized for exploiting workers and ur r

standards. Government institutions,

upholding the principles of fairness anc

even greater responsibility to arroid s

employment practices. When public sect,l

in misuse of temporary contracts, it nol

detrimental trends observed in the gig l

sets a concerning precedent that can eroc

governmental operations.

r y employment

Flects a broader

llers'rights and

rise of the gig

rus employment

of benefits, job

ices have been

errmin ing labour

€ ntrusted with

jJStice, bear an

rch exploitative

entities engage

)nly mirrors the

.onomy but also

3 pu blic trust

jn

25. It is a disconcerting reality that tempr

particularly in government institutic I

multifaceted forms of exploitation. Whilr

purpose of temporary contracts ma\

address short-term or seasona ne:

increasingly become a mechanism to 20:,

3826 evade long-term obligations owe(

These practices manifest in several ways.

rary employees,

s, often face

,he foundational

lave been to

ls, they have

SCC OnLine SC

to employees.

a emoorarv" Labe1;: Emplovees

enoaoed for work that is essential,_recurrto, and

inteqral to the functioninq of an nstitution are

often labelled as "temoorary" or "cor1

when their roles mirror those of req Iar emDlovees.

Suchmisclassification deorives wr,rkersof the

d io nitv.securitv, andbenefits thatreoular

emoloes are entatd to.despteerfor

identica Itasks.

:ractual," even

. Arbitrary Termination: Tempcrary

frequently dismissed without cause or r (

the present case. This practice undermirl

of natural justice and subjects u,orke'r

constant insecurity, regardless of the qrr

of their service. . Lack of Career Progre;

employees often find themselves

opportu nities for skill development,

incremental pay raises. They remain :,t

:mployees are

t ice, as seen in

:s the principles

to a state of

rlity or duration

ion: Temporary

:xcluded from

)romotions, or

rgnant in their

18

roles, creating a systemic disparity

th eir regular counterparts, despite

being equally significa nt.

between them and

their contributions

SN,J

wP 16998 202)

. 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 theia tenure spans decades. fnis tact of social

security subjects them and their families to undue

hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement. or

unforeseen circu mstances. "

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

record.

17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's

discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of

the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that

their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E

and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,7947, and that they

tn ntoerennial duties.thesewereenoaoed esse

workers cannot be releoatd to DerDetual uncertaintv.

While concerns of municipal budqet and compliance with

!

,

t

i

I

I

I

t

l9

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

recruitErent rulesmerit consideration. suc 1 concerns do

not absolve the Employer of statutory)bliqations or

neqate equitable entitlements. Indeedbureaucratic

lim itationscannot trumD the leoitimE te riqhts of

workmen who have served contanuous lt in de facto

reqular roles for anextended period.

18. The impuqned order of the Hiqh Cour! _to the extent

they confine the Appellant Workmen to fur!:rre dailv-waoe

enoaoement withoconttnuitvol' mr: rninqful back

waoes. is herebv set aside with the followilq directions:

I. The discontinuation of the Appe I

services, effected without compliance witl

Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Dispu i

declared illegal. All orders or communicat

their services are quashed. In consequer(

Workmen shall be treated as continuinll

the date of their termination, for all pur

seniority and continuity in service.

rnt Workmen's

Section 6E and

s Act, 1947, is

ons terminating

e, the Appellant

in service from

roses, including

Ii. The Respondent Employer shall reinsta

Workmen in their respective posts (or

l)

duties they previously performed) \//ithin

the date of this judgment. I he.r1-srf

absence (from the date of terminati.!

,e the Appellant

rsts a kin to the

cur weeks from

tre oertod of

'n

until actual

reinstatement) shall be counted focontinuitv ofl

service andall conseouentialben ( fits, such as

senioritvand eliqibilitv for Drom otiorr1 . if anv.

III. Considering the length of seryico, the Appellant

Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the t ack wages from

the date of their discontinuation urr il their actual

reinstatement. The Respondent Errrployr:r shall clear the

aforesaid dues within three months from he date of their

reinstatement.

IV. Theesoondent EmDloer is dirrted to initiate

oularizinq the

.,'!

a fair and transparent process for rE

Appellant Workmen within six monthgfrom theate

of reinstatement, dulY considerino thfact that tC hev

eDerformed oerennial municiDalluties akin to

J arization, the

ha

rm osts. In assessin

20

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

tm ron oru

Droceduralcritrtaetroaivelvifuch

tfl n er r

st

tEAell

w m r rulmr e

rnhe oaTothe extent tht sanionedvacanctes

rs

enm lt di

ireth

all ns

d tss r

es

em

wa

r

tnrtiv nsuth lonIM

ar fin i I ed d

es contrarvto statutory and eouitable norms.

c

ti

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 aie dismlssed.,,

12.he rtiaumen oed in20171

ex

remCouCa 148stofPnaand ers

VJa ln nd ersPar54di

1 udentservdas

2But ail e h

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating

upon the above controversy had conctuded, that temporary

employees were not entitted to the minimum of the regular pay-

scale, merely for the reason, that the activities cariied on

'by

daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The futt benih

however, made two exceptions, Temporary employees, who fe

in either of the two exceptions, were held entitted to wages at

the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regutar emptoyees. The

exceptions recorded by the fult bench of the High Court in the

impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:

_

"(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 opportunity to all other etigible candidates,

shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from

the date of engagement.

e2

sub-ras

er:

I

ADDOinteesare notaDDointe oarnst ulard

osts andtheir servicesare av,

I

sanctioned

w onal th

ailed

I

2l

SN,J

wP 1699E 2023

Government or its instrumentalities or a sufficient

lons oeriod i.e. for 70 vearc, such dily waqers, ad

hoc or contractual aDDOtntees shal,be entitled to

without anvminimum of the regular pav scat

allewances on the assumption

!

!

.!

I

t_

oerennial nature is available and ha'

such lono oeriod of time. an eo.

hat work of

nq worked for

table riqht is

created in such cateqorv of percons" fheir claim for

reoularization, if anv, mav have to_ be considered

separately in terms of leqallv permis.s ble scheme.

(3) In the event, a claim is made tbr m't imum pay scale

after more than three years ,and I ryo months of

completion of 10 years of contiiuous t lorkingJ; a daily

wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sl', tll be entitled to

arrears for a period of three years and tv,t months."

13. The iudqment of the Aoex Court reoorli:d in 2O1O(9)

SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka a nd others v

M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, Daras 4to 9 reads as

u nder:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. lJmaae red

on 70.4.2090 (reported in 2006 U) SCC 7). tn that casea

Constitution Bench of this Court held that ap,)

without following the due process or the.

appointment did not confer any right on the

coutts cannot direct their absorption, regul,

engagement nor make their service pennane..

Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Arti'

Constitution should not ordinarily issue directio't

regularization, or permanent continuance unless

had been done in a regular manne,r, il

constitutional scheme; and that the coutts rr,L

ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wi,

arrangement of its affairs by the State or its i

nor lend themselves to be instruments to tbcilit)

of the constitutional and statutory mandates. '

held that a temporary, contractual, casual (

employee does not have a legal right tct be r

unless he had been appointed in terms of the rt ,

adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti

however made one exception to the aLtove t

same is extracted below :

tintments made

,les relating to

appointees and

rization or re-

:, and the High

Ie 226 of the

; for absorption,

the recruitment

terms of the

st be careful in

h the economic

, stru menta lities,

e the bypassing

ris Court fu rther

r a daily-wage

tade permanent

)vant rules or in

tion. This Court

?sition and the

22

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

"53.One asoect neeto berified.ere mavbe

esere i o,n tst illelar

ADintments) asexolained,n .s.NaravaNADDA

77R72 R./V. und

40and B. a an

79 7

4 507

andreferredtotn Dara 75 ave, ofulv ouafied

erso dul tionvacan ts mi'tha

beenmade andthe emDlovees have conti.nued to

work forten vearsor more butwithoutthe

tntention oforders ofthe courtsor of t,una ls.

e ouestion of reoula rizationofthse of

uch lo ma to consi o

mer'its in t,lioht ofthe ori,D/esttled bvthis

Couin the caaboveferred toand ine lioht

of this iudoment. In that context, theUnion of

India,the StateGovernments andtheir

instrumentalit.ies shoul,d take steos to reoularize as

a one-time measure, thervices ofsuch irreoula rlv

aDT'On hohavewt for fenvears ormore

tnlv sancti' DoSts but not undercover of

ordeof thecourts otof tribunals and shou ld

fu rther ensuthat ular ruitmentsare

undertaken tofill thosevacantsanctionedDOSts

thatuire to befilled uo,r, caseswhere

m em or wae bein

now employed. TheDrocess must he set inotion

tn stx hs fro sda

7

"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 futfilted :

(i) The employee concerned shoutd 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. In other words, the

State Government or its instrumentatity should have employed

the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and

continuously for more than ten years.

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be ittegat,

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 iltegat. But where the

person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and

was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected

SN,J

wP t6998 2023

without undergoing the process of open comp )titive selection,

such appointments are considered to be irregula'.

(iii) Umadevi ca a dutv uDon

Government or instrumentalitv. to t

reoularize the servicesofthose ttreou

emDlovees who had served for more

without the benefit or Drotection of anv it|erim orders of

courts or tribunals,as a one-time mear ure. Umadelri,

ch one-time Lust be set in

_ of its decision

te concerned

ke steps to

trlv aooointed

En ten vears

I

'!

l.

t,

,

motion within six months from the date

( rendered o n 7O.4. 2OOG ).

G. The term

\one-time

measure' has te, be t nderstood in its

proper perspective. This would normally' rn€i t that after the

decision in Umadevi, each department or ea(l instrumentality

should undertake a one-time exercise and pr,z nre a list of all

casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees vrho ha re been working

for more than ten years without the intervenli ,n of courts and

tribunals and subject them to a process vt rification as to

whether they are working against vacant post:; and possess the

requisite qualification for the post and if so. regularize their

services.

7. At the end of six months from the dar(

Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/ c

were still pending before Courts. (:onse(

departments and instrumentalities did not cotr

time regularization process. On the othe

Government departments or instru mentalitie !

one-time exercise excluding sever;tl (,/

consideration either on the ground that their c.:

in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such c'r

employees who were entitled to be consi,Cerec'

53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose

considered for regularization, merely trecaus

exercise was completed without consictering

because the six month period mentioned in par

has expired. The one-time exercise should cc

wage/adhoc/those employees who had put

continuous service as on 10.4.2006 with')

protection of any interim orders of courts or

employer had held the one-time exercise in te.

Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of son,t

were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of tlmact

concerned should consider their cases also, as

the one-time exercise. The one time exercise

t,

of decision in

sual employees

uently, several

mence the one-

' hand, some

undertook the

tployees from

es were pending

aumstances, the

'n

terms of Para

heir right to be

-" the one-time

their cases, or

t 53 of Umadevi

osider all daily-

n 70 years of

!t availing the

'ribunals. If any

ns of para 53 of

employees who

vi, the employer

' continuation of

'ill be concluded

24

SN,J

w? 16998 2023

only when

-all

the emproyees who aie entitted to be considered

in terms of para

53 of lJmadevi, are so considered.

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

Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure tiat 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 regularizatioi in view of

their long service. Second is to urrii" that the

departments/ instrume.ntalities do not pirpetuate the

practice of employing persons on daity_wage/ad_

hoc/casual

_

for long periods and then periodically

regularize them on the q,o_u4Q llat they haye ser:ved for

morE than ten yeais) theleby-deieaUigihe constitutional

or statutory provisions relating ti recruitment and

appointment. The true effect of ihe direction is that all

persons who have worked for more than ten years as on

70.4.2006 (the date of decision in llmadevi) 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 regitarization. The fact that

the employer has not undeiiaken such exercise of

regularization within six months of the decision in

Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in

regard to a limited few, witt not disentitte such

gmyloVeesa the right to be considered for regularization

in terms of the above directions in llmadevi ai a one_time

measure.

9. 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 reipondents of

regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or

thereafter.

10. 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 Zita panchayat,

Gaiag shoutd now

undertake an exercise within six months, a geieral one_ time

regularization exercise, to find out whethter tiere are any daily

wage/casual/ad-hoc emptoyees serving the Zila panchayat

and'if

so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfitt

the requirements mentioned in para 5i of lJmadevi. If they futfi

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 t-hese cases,

25

then their cases shall have to be considered in

the said one time exercise within three months.

say that if the respondents do not fulfill the

Para 53 of lJmadevi, their services need not ln

the employees who have completed ten years

possess the educational qualifications prescribet

the time of their appointment, they may be

regularization in suitable lower posts. This appe

accordingly.

SN,J

wP r6998 2023

continuation of

't

is needless to

equirements of

regularised. If

service do not

I'or the post, at

considered for

'l is disposed of

L4.In the iudoment of the ADexcou rttrNihal Sinqh

and others v. State oPuniab reDorted in (

; o13) 14 SCC

65, the Supreme Court considered the case ( f absorption

of Special Police Officers appointed by the ;tate, whose

wages were paid by Banks at whose tl sposal their

services were made available. It held that I he mere fact

that wages were paid by the Bank did nct render the

appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the

appointment was made by the State anc disciplinary

control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a

cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrr: is a matter

exclusively within the authority of the Starl e, but if the

State did not choose to create a cadre but r: rose to make

appointments of persons creating contractual

relationship, its action is arbitrary.r refused to

accept the defence that there were no sarr :tioned oosts

It al:i

and so there was iustification for theSl:i te touti I ise

26

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

erv flem tele likhael!s

dI th nonedt on m

avnanth thtcte th

e

a

souch nc e Jmtials mnt

fned. Rrrr Uad h tte n

breh re noartra h h ial

tmntasotn ar' t hasa

beenmadetnaccord withance thestatutorvDrocedure

orescribedunderthe PoliceAc 161.andtheState

nn hrd tere tied bt

Ied in hs of ths o mant

stasa din etr n nw el

teor dtaatnansctidosc

bv the State.ftwasheldthattheiudo inUent mad

ted

evt

caote elicce loiti tande

rnsU n a ntie tht erm of

P nthebtise ntiuech

B

oracticetnconslstent wth theirobliqati funntoctiontn

anewa Conit

tofh

n

15.

exor IN 15

conline SC een B. Srin i andothersv

sc

o un

1797be vasul

mssrr

on

27

SN,J

wP t6998 2023

Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and otheri in particular

paras 7 and 8 reads as under:

(7)W" lnd it difficult to acceDt the reasoniD'' adooted bv the

Hiqh Cquft. The riq ht ,K

rcqularizationrl

flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.195t. .The aooellant

have been in service of the first respondent neLDlv priat to the

issuance of the said GO. but even subseeue,tto the issue of

G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality t

body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Ins,t

mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite fo.

without regularising the service of the appella 1

to extract work from the appellants.

)ing a statutory

te of the above

almost 20 years

's

and continued

fit of the above

)qts approached

iustified. In the

the order under

s be regularised

their five year

::ourt in District

3: Ors. 2009 (8)

8. In the circumstances, refusing the berr

mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appel,

the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is no,

circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyin q

appeal by directing that the appellants' servic<

with effect from the date of their completir,(

continuous service as was laid down by this

Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singf

SCC 4BO"

16. In Amarkant Rai vState of Bihar reorr_ted (2015) 8

scc 265, the Suoreme Court heldthat '

-he

objective

behind the exception carved out in this case Jvas to permit

regularization of such appointment, whictr are irregular

but not illegal, and to ensure appoantmen :s, which are

irregular but not illegal, and to ensur(secu ritv of

emolovment of those Dersonsho had ser red thState

Government and their instrumentalities for I nore than ten

vears". In that case, employee was workingtor 29 years.

28

SN,J

wP t6998 2023

T st aov earlerew tn

MKartxtrcteov

77Intatofarkhdvam Pra rtln

oL47

re

cc23imilar viwwa

anwaeldfoll

nviofec.on

nteusieththe

aventintnheir'rvt

takbhe

of

nte

rm th70ars

Co

s

7

fent

e

continuouslv therefore, theleoal orrnctDle laiddownbv

,s tna case

264cc1oo6

li, re cas

tateKa kaUmavt

'cs ata53

vts,en

ua

Th of,

HiohCourt hasriqhtlv held the'sDondentthat

elo areti,rt,re theec,t

tedwibtCour

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22

passed in W.p.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertaans to

regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha

Swamy Temple, yadadri,

Natgonda District, which

had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court

in W.A.No.937 ot 2O23 dated 10.10.2O23 and also

confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

O9.OA.2O24 in SLp No.32847 ot 2024.

19. Theiudqmentof the Aoeourt in Hari Krishnaxc

a rashtraMandir TrusV. Staof Mah and oters reDorted

29

SN.J

wP 16998 2023

in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in rlrrticular para

Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows:

"100. The H

Article 226 o

power to iss

mandamus,

igh Courts exercising their ju isdiction under

f the Constitution of India, n,: only have the

ue a writ of mandamus or rr the nature of

but are dutv-bound to r:xercise such

werwh hr vr nt blic authoriWt

has failed to exercise or has wron lly exercised

discretion conferred upon it bv a statu!or a ruleor

a policy decision of the Government or has exercised

sueh discretion mala fide- or ( n irrelevant

consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court mur;

mandamus and give directions to compel

an appropriate and lawful manner of

conferred upon the Government or a public

issue a writ of

rerformance in

the d iscretion

r uthority. "

20.The Dlvlion Bench of this Court in its Juqments

.o6.2013assin W.A.N 72l',2O and 854

of 2O12 while upholdino the Judqment datld o8.o9.2010

passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.l48 of 2OO8

observedas underr-

"Further, it is manifest from the material orr

services of the similarly placed persons who alt

Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corpo r

various office orde rslcircu la rs dated 20.12.1!

06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 fo,-

casual/contract employees, It is also to be seer

T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practic€

or workman. As can be seen from the factur

cases on hand, engaging the respondents for

continuous period of time on casual basis is I

labour practice attracting the provisions of So,

ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relyin<1

of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respor(

to regularization as directed in the impugnr:r

record that the

;roached the law

r1-ion also issued

39, 11.09.1992,

egu larization of

that Section 25-

:y a ny employer

scenario of the

such a long and

rth ing but u nfa ir

tion 25-T of the

on the decisions

ents are entitled

orders, as the

30

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

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. Division Bench hiCourt in its Judmn

dated 19.O9.2017 passedin W.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7

reDorted in 2O18(2)ALD Daqe 282 atDara 16 and para 18

observeds 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 7994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated

22.4.L994, 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/reg ula 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 Uma Devi's case (supra). But

still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where

State enactments banning reg u larization/a bsorptio n exist.

Therefore, Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated

22.4.L994. do not whittledownthewtdthand the

aniula Bashini's case (supra), does not

e trae.t.rrv .rf tlre dire

rl.ions

iccr razl hv r'ha

SuDreme Court in Para 53 of itsiudomentin Uma Devi's

sesura r rmt rth

n take shelter under Act 2 of

Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, to denv rularization to

fhetit v zAmtl-l-oAsatisfi

arl +lra

criteria laid down in Para No,53 of theiudoment in Uma

Devi's ca(suora).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017,

In OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file oF the Tribunal is set aside

ion is allowed with the di

t

and the wri ection to the

)l

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

respondents to consider requlari5ation o'the services of

the Detitioners aqaanst the exastanq va<:i ncies of Work

Insoectors and aooint them subiect to:heir satisfvinq

the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of t re iudqment in

Uma Devi's case (supra), This process m Lr.! t be completed

within two months from the date of recr:i Dt of a coov of

th is order. "

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment

dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1ot 2019

and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reDorted in 2O:2l(4)ALD paqe

379 ar44 ob ed a s under:-

"45. There is no dispute that petitioners hav(

daily wage since 1990 and have put in almc

service by now. They have been given minimur

the year 2000. They have been continuousl,r

any Court orders In their favour from 1990 till :

reen working on

st (30) years of

rtime-scale from

working without

lte.

48. tt is not known whv the 1st resDndent has not(

fnllarerarl lhadecision in Um Dv a se (suora), as

one-time exerciseof oreoarino the lisl: of dailv waoe

emolovees who had worked for more thaC ten (1O) vears

without the intervention of the Courts an(l_ Tribunals as on

10.4.2005and subiect them to a Drocess')rification as to

whether thev areworkino aoainst vac rnt Dosts and

possess requisite qualifications for the tlrsts. and if so.

reoularize terr servlces.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition ls allower; the impugned

orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st rer;,ondent rejecting

the cases of petitioners for regularization of ;ervices on one-

time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of

Articles 14, 76 and 21 of the Constitutio of India; the

resoondents are dircted to reqularize orr one-time basis

petitioners' services from the date each c,l the petitioners

comDlete1O vears of service on dailvaoes fm thev

initial dates of their appointment, But, th:v shal! not be

entitled to any monetary relief. The said

':

<erctseshall be

onwt o

coov of the order."

eksrom 1e of receiDt of

explained in M.L. Kesari's case (suora)

a 1 I undertaken a

32

SN,J

wP r699E 2023

23. TheAoex Court in its .Idoment inState ofUttar

Pradeh and OtheVs. AravindKumar Srivastava andhers,

dated 11O.2O14 in Civil Apoeal N0.9849of 2O14 obsrved as

u nder:

"(1) Normal rule is thatwhen a Darticu Ir set of

emDovees is oiven relief bvthe Court. all other

n ateder edtob alik

extendinq that benet. Not doinoso would amount to

discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of

theconstitution ofIndia. This orinciole needto be

rnnliaeltnrvt,'a rrr.++6rcmIa arrrrihali--il

ti.tsrtrAan r,tc fzrrrri fra]rrttm.lbhi

time ootulates that allsimilarlv situatedDersons

ul

,ll. imitarl ethe n;:nrl arla

would bthat merelv because other similarlsituated

en roachh lierth

to be treated differentlv."

ThisCourt ooines Detiioners hereinnnot be

discriminted and Detitioners are entitled for

consideration of their case for reoularization of services

whichhad been extended similarlv situated oersons

like theoetitioners herein.

24. rtotnstat in resent h

resDondents filed to discharqe their dutvln examrnrno

of the Detitioners for rethe reouest ularization of

JJ

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

contract workers and Ieakaqe workers inthe Khammam

Municioaand further to consider their r( ouesttreat

the temoorarv service of the oetitioners as r eoularone for

all ourDOses bv orantinolastrade oavy

'ith

oeriodical

tncrement revised fromtimetime frorhdate of

aooointment of the Detitioners.in accordan c g to law.

25. This Couooines that oetitioners ale entitled for

consideration ofDetitioners case for qrantf the reliefas

(

oraved forin the Dresent Writ Petition iI view of the

observations ofthe AoexCourt in vari<l ts iudqments

(referred to andextractedabove) and ttr, r viewof the

Division Bench of thiCourt in theudqmets referred toI

nd extr bove.

26. Takinointo consideration: -

(a) The aforesaid facts and circunr: ;tances of the

case,

(b) The submissions made by the lt:, rrned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners arr, I the learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,

petitioners services, who are workinq as Pr1 rro Ooerators,

34

SN,J

wP 16998 2023

(c) The order impugned dated 26.05.2023 issued

by the 1't Respondent vide Proceedings

Roc.No.C1l34312023 (referred to and extracted above),

(d) The averments made in the counter affidavit

fited on behalf of the 1't respondent, at para 7 (referred to

and extracted above)

(d) The observatjons of the Apex Court in the

various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and

again enlisted below:

(i) 202s scc oNLTNE sc 1735

(ii) (2020) 1 scc (L&s)

(iii) r990(2) SCC Page 396

(iv) 2025 INSC r44

(v) 2024 Lawsuit(SC) 1209

(vi) (2017) 1 SCC 148

(vii) 2010(9) SCC247

(viii) (2013) 14SCC 6s

(ix) 2015 SCC Online SC 7797

(x) (201s) B SCC 26s

(xi) (20t4) 7 ScC223

(xii) SLP No.32847 of 2024

(xiii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969

(xiv) (2006) 4 SCC 1

(xv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234

(xvi) 2018(2)ALD page 282

(xvii) 2020(4)ALD page 379

(xviii) 2020(4)ALD page 379

(e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at

para Nos.5 to 25 of the present order,

The Writ Petitionis allowed.The order imuoned

the 1"t ResDondedated26.Os.2023 ,ued bv t vide

35

SN.J

wP 16998 2021

Proceedins Roc.No.Cl l343l2023 is setrside and the

matter isremitted to the 1't resoondentt ) consider the

ners for reqularizatioof petitionersreouest of the Detitio l

services dulv takino into consideratiothe fact thatn

Detitioners had rendered more than 2

t2decades of

service for the resoodents herein, in accrl'dance to law

in conformitv withDnnctesof neturl iustice bvr

providinqan oooortunitv of !:arinq to theDErsonal I

Detitioners as per theobservations of the Irex Court in its

J

iudqments referredto and extracted ab rve andpass

aoorooriate orders within a oeriod of fo1r (O4) weeks

from the date of riot of coDv of this< rder and duly

communicate the decision to the oetitior ers. However

there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, iF any pendin(, in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

Sc,/ P.CSULEKHA D

A!i ;ISTANT RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTI

(For Her LadYshiPs Kind

1. The Commissioner, Khammam Municipal Corporation'

(hammam' Khammam

District.

2. The commission and Director of Municipal Administratio '

state of Telanagana'

A.C.Guards, HYderabad,

3.ThePrincipalsecretary,MAandUDDepartment,secrel:riat'Hyderabad'State

of Telanagana.

To,

URE

] {LLI NANDA

;l

I

i

i

\

4. The Principal Secretary, Finance and planning

Department. Secretariat,

Hyderabad, State of Telanagana.

5.

'1

1 LR Copies

6. The Urrder Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs,

New Delhi.

7. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings,

Hyderabad.

8. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MAD|RAJU, Advocate tOpUCl

9. One CC to SMT R.MADHAVI LATHA, SC FOR MCPL [OpUCl

"l0.Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV., High Court for the State of

Telangana at Hyderabad

[OUTI

1'l .Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANN|NG, High Court for the State of

Telangana at Hyderabad

[OUT]

12. Two CD Copies

8SR

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2910812025

ORDER

L

oFTEL4

4

t

I

I

,i

q

o

,$

s\

.{

tr

l--:s

&otH+

G

t'!'

WP.No.16998 of 2023

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

I

9/L