Telangana High Court
Sri. E.Venkateswarlu vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 1 April, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.20382 OF 2022
Between:
Sri E.Venkateswarlu
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana & 2 others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.04.2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.20382 OF 2022
% 01.04.2025
Between:
# Sri E.Venkateswarlu
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana & 2 others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Jurispath
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Asst. G.P. for Services-I
? Cases Referred:
(i) 2025 INSC 144
(ii) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209
(iii) (2017) 1 SCC 148
(iv) 2010(9) SCC 247
(v) (2013) 14 SCC 65
(vi) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797
(vii) (2015) 8 SCC 265
(viii) (2014) 7 SCC 223
(ix) SLP No.32847 of 2024
3 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.20382 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri Jurispath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
"(a)...to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner in the post of Water man cum Gardener/ Attender in the 3rd respondent college without extending the benefit of G.O.MS.No.212, 22.04.1994 on par with similarly situated persons, who got regularized in view of the G.O.Ms.No.212, as per the orders in W.P.(TR).No.5110 of 2017, dated 10.08.2018 and W.P.No.16414 of 2019, dated 02.08.2019 which arises as per the analogy laid down in O.A.No.6988 of 1996, dated 14.09.1999, which was confirmed by the High court in W.P.No.16029 of 2000 dated 19.07.2010 is arbitrary, bad and illegal and violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to have his services regularized under the guise of G.O.Ms.No.212, with all consequential benefits, pay, 4 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 arrears of pay, increments on the analogy of the orders passed in the above matters, in the interest of justice.
(b) ...for the reasons and circumstances stated above, the Hon'ble Court may be please to set aside the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide RC.No.OP.1-1/1559453/2022 dated 08.06.2022, in the interest of justice."
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Waterman-cum-Gardener on a consolidated pay of Rs.75/- in respondent No.3 college on 27.01.1986, under Rule 10 (a) (1) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, and has been in continuous service since then. The petitioner claimed entitlement to regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, which was introduced to regularize the services of employees who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years before 25.11.1993. Despite filing O.A.No.6920 of 1996 and O.A.No.350 of 2000 for regularization of the petitioner's service and the respondents having been directed by the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court to consider regularization, the respondents rejected the petitioner's claim vide proceedings dated 08.06.2022, stating that the petitioner's appointment was "Part-Time," even though the petitioner worked full-time and performed additional duties, 5 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 including sweeping the college premises. It is further the case of the petitioner that similarly situated employees, namely Mr. N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed, had their services regularized through similar legal proceedings, including O.A.No.6988 of 1996, W.P.No.16029 of 2000, W.P.(TR)No.5110 of 2017, and W.P.No.16414 of 2019, which were decided in favor of the applicants, confirming their entitlement to regularization. The petitioner submitted a representation on 17.03.2022, requesting regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, but the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition.
4. PERSUED THE RECORD
5. The impugned order vide RC.No.OP.1- 1/1559453/2022, dated 08.06.2022 passed by respondent No.2 is extracted hereunder:
"Sub:- SUITS - W.P.No.20382/2022, filed by Sri E. Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener, Government Junior College (Girls), Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District, Old
6 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 Warangal District - for regularisation of services - Not feasible of compliance - Orders - Issued Read:-1] Government Memo.No.475/IE.A2/2022, dated 16/05/2022 2] Hon'ble High Court Orders dated 22/04/2022 in W.P.No.20382/2022, filed by Sri E. Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener, GJC (Girls), Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District 2] Representation dated 14/03/2022 of Sri E Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener, Government Junior College (Girls), Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District ***** Sri E. Venkateswarlu was engaged as Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener at Government Junior College (Girls), Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District with effect from 28/01/1986.
The individual filed W.P.No.20382/2022 in Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and prayed for regularisation of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance, dated 22.04.1994. The Hon'ble High Court in its interim orders dated 22/04/2022 has directed the respondent to 7 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14/03/2022 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Government have formulated a scheme for regularisation of Part-Time employees in G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A.D., dated 23.07.1997 that those who had worked continuously for a minimum service of ten (10) years in a sanctioned vacancy and must be continuing as on 25.11.1993, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions stipulated therein. Since the incumbent was appointed as Part-Time employee on 14/11/1986 and not completed the requisite 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 as Part- Time Contingent, he is not eligible for regularisation of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.112, General Administration Department, dated 23 07.1997.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 06.07.2009 in Civil Appeal No.3702/2006 and batch (ManjulaBhashin case) has issued orders that "the daily wage employees and others who are covered by Section 7 of the 1994 Act (amended) and whose services have not been regularized so far, shall be entitled to be considered for regularization and their services shall be regularized subject to 8 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 fulfilment of the conditions enumerated in G.O.212, dated 22.04.1994. With a view to obviate further litigation on this issue, we direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh, its Officers and agencies/ instrumentalities of the State to complete the exercise for regularization of the services of eligible employees within four months of the receipt/production of copy of this order, without being influenced by the fact that the application, writ petition or appeal filed by any such employee may have been dismissed by the Tribunal or High court or this Court. Since some of the appeal decided by this order relate to Part- Time employees, we direct that similar exercise be undertaken in their cases and completed within four months keeping in view the conditions enumerated in G.O.(P)No.112, dated 23.07.1997.
Sri E. Venkateswarlu was engaged as Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener at Government Junior College (Girls), Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District on
28/01/1986. Hence, he has not completed 10 years of service as on 25/11/1993 for regularisation of services as per G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A.D., dated 23.07.1997. Therefore, his request for regularisation of 9 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. Finance, dated 22.04.1994 is not feasible and hence rejected."
6. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, and in particular, paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 of the said counter-affidavit are extracted hereunder:
"6. It is submitted that, the Petitioner was engaged as Part-Time Contingent Waterman Cum Gardener at Government Junior College for Girls, Mahabubabad on 27/01/1986. Since, he is a Part-Time Employee, his case does not comes under the preview of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated:
22.04.1994. Further, the Petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as on 25/11/1993 for regularisation of services as per G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A D., dated 23.07.1997.
7. It is further submitted that, the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad in its interim orders dated 22/04/2022 in W.P.No.20382/2022 filed by Sri E. Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener, Government Junior College (Girls), 10 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District made the following order:
"Hence, there shall be interim direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14/03/2022".
8. It is submitted that, accordingly his case was considered and rejected vide this Proceeding Rc.No.OP1-1/1559453/2022 dt 08.06.2022, since, the petitioner is a Part-Time Employee, his case does not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994. Further, the Petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as on 25/11/1993 for regularisation of services as per G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A.D., dated 23.07.1997, as the said petitioner is only the part time employee. Hence the case was rejected."
7. The Judgment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2025 reported in 2025 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in particular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:
"15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, 11 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 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. Indian 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 judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India 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. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
.........
12 SN,J WP No.20382_2022
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• 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.
13 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on 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, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable 14 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.
15 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed."
8. The judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.12.2024, reported in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jaggo Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant paragraph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder:
"12. Despite being labelled as "part- time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not 16 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 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.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning 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 judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)] 17 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its 18 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It 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 being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
19 SN,J WP No.20382_2022
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
20 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back
on duty forthwith and their services
regularised forthwith. However, the
appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits."
9. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Punjab and others vs Jagjit Singh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-paras (1)(2)(3), of the said judgment observed as under:
"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
"(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 eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.
21 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 (2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme.
(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."
10. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2010(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, paras 4 to 9 reads as under:
4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re-
engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further 22 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) SCR 128], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. ....
"5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled :
(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. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or
23 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 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.
(iii) Umadevi 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 Umadevi, 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 subject 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.
7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or 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 oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- 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. If any 24 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of 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 Umadevi 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 the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date 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 or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, 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.
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 respondents 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 Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if 25 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
11. In the judgement of the Apex Court in Nihal Singh and others v. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual 26 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to accept the defence that there were no sanctioned posts and so there was justification for the State to utilise services of large number of people like the appellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referring to Umadevi, it held that the appellants before them were not arbitrarily chosen, their initial appointment was not an 'irregular' appointment as it had been made in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to say that they are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as, according to it, their appointments were purely temporary and not against any sanctioned posts created by the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Punjab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a 27 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 practice inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance with the Constitution.
12. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivalusu and others v Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular paras 7 and 8 reads as under:
(7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.
8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.
13. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported (2015) 8 SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular 28 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure security of employment of those persons who had served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten years". In that case, employee was working for 29 years. This decision approves earlier view expressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.
14. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken by the Supreme Court and it was held as follows :
"41.... In view of the categorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent employees have continued in their service for more than 10 years continuously therefore, the legal principle laid down by this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarely applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the respondent employees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court."
15. A bare perusal of the observations of the Apex Court in various judgments referred to and extracted above clearly indicate that the claim of the petitioners for regularization has to be necessarily considered in view of the fact that the concept of one time measure as explained at paras 6 to 10 of the Judgment of the Apex 29 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 Court in State of Karnataka v M.L.Kesari which in clear explicit terms said that one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Uma Devi are so considered and the mandate and object in Uma Devi's case as explained in para 53 of the said judgment, to do periodic regular recruitment of qualified personnel for vacant posts and regularise the services of those engaged for more than 10 years, as a one time measure and the clarification of Uma Devi's case and the observation as held at para '5' of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L.Kesari and others that Uma Devi casts a duty upon the concerned Government and 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 has not been diluted and the observations in para 54(2) of the Judgement of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh still hold good, which has clearly 30 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 said that a legally permissible scheme has to be framed in respect of daily wagers, adhoc or contractual appointees who are not appointed against sanctioned posts, but their services are availed continuously with notional breaks by the State Government or its instrumentality for a sufficient long period i.e., for ten years.
16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, specifically placing relying on the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in particular paragraph Nos.7 to 11, contended that under similar circumstances, part-time contingent employees at Mothkur Government Junior College, against the sanctioned vacancies, approached this Court for regularization of their services as per G.O.Ms.No.212. The cases of the contingent employees at Mothkur Government Junior College, namely N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed were considered, and their services were regularized. In fact, the Tribunal, in its order in O.A.No.6988 of 1996 filed by N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed, dated 14.09.1999, very clearly observed that the applicants thereunder had put in more than five years of 31 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 service and were in continuous service in the organization as on the cut-off date fixed in G.O.Ms.No.212. Therefore, it cannot be said that the two ingredients which are required for regularization of services had not been satisfied and that the minimum service of five years and also the said applicants working on the cut-off date fixed in G.O.Ms.No.212 had been satisfied. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. in favour of the said applicants, clearly observing that the applicants thereunder are entitled to regularization of services and also periodical increments. The said judgment in the case of the applicants, N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed had been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 19.07.2010 in W.P.No.16029 of 2000, and the proceedings had been issued regularizing the services of the said contingent employees. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to similar relief, and the impugned order dated 08.06.2022 rejecting the petitioner's case is without application of mind, passed in a mechanical manner, intended only to deny the relief as prayed for by the petitioner herein.
32 SN,J WP No.20382_2022
17. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, does not dispute that the relief had been extended to other similarly situated persons like the petitioner working in Mothkur Government Junior College, Nalgonda District. However, contends that the said persons had approached the Tribunal, whereas the petitioner did not approach the Tribunal, and did not obtain any favourable orders from the Tribunal, as was obtained by the said N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed.
18. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 of the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above), contends that the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed.
19. This Court opines that the impugned order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The impugned order dated 08.06.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and the counter 33 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 affidavit filed by the respondents refers to two specific reasons denying the request of the petitioner for regularization and absorption of the services of the petitioner in the post of Waterman cum Gardener/Attender at respondent No.3 college by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 on par with similarly situated persons who got regularized under similar circumstances, which are enlisted below:
(a) the petitioner is a part-time employee,
(b) the case of the petitioner does not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, since the petitioner had not completed ten years of service as on 25.11.1993 for regularization of the petitioner's services as per G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A.D., dated 23.07.1997.
20. A bare perusal of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, clearly indicates that the cases of persons appointed on a Daily Wage basis/NMRs or on Consolidated pay, and who continued in service as on the date of commencement of the Act, such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years of service and are continuing in service as on 25.11.1993 34 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 be regularized by appointing authorities subject to fulfilment of certain specific conditions.
21. This Court opines that the impugned proceedings dated 08.06.2022 are not only contrary to the view of the Apex Court in the various Judgments referred to and extracted above, but also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, which clearly provides for the regularization and absorption of Daily Wage/NMR or Consolidated pay employees.
22. It is pertinent to refer the Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.
23. Taking into consideration:
(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 35 SN,J WP No.20382_2022
(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents,
(c) The averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 (referred to and extracted above),
(d) The observations of the Apex Court reported in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above), as enlisted below:
(i) 2025 INSC 144
(ii) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209
(iii) (2017) 1 SCC 148
(iv) 2010(9) SCC 247
(v) (2013) 14 SCC 65
(vi) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797
(vii) (2015) 8 SCC 265
(viii) (2014) 7 SCC 223
(ix) Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 which had been upheld by Division Bench of this Court in WA No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.
(e) The bounden duty on the Judiciary to rectify misclassifications and ensure that all workers receive fair 36 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 treatment without being discriminated duly taking into consideration the indispensable services rendered by the petitioner over three decades continuously since 1986,
(f) The fact, as borne on record, that the relief had been extended to similarly situated persons like the petitioner, who worked as contingent employees at Mothkur Government Junior College, Nalgonda District. The orders of this Court in W.P.(TR)No.5110 of 2017, dated 10.08.2018, W.P.No.16414 of 2019, dated 02.08.2019, the order dated 14.09.1999 passed in O.A.No.6988 of 1996, and the order dated 19.07.2010 passed in W.P.No.16029 of 2000, This Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.OP.1-1/1559453/2022, dated 08.06.2022 is set-aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for regularization of the petitioner's services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, who is presently working as a part-time Waterman cum Gardener, at Government Junior college, 37 SN,J WP No.20382_2022 (Girls), Mahabubabad, with effect from the date of the petitioner's initial appointment i.e., 27.01.1986, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law, duly considering the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above), in conformity of principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 01.04.2025 Note: L.R. copy to be marked B/o Hfm/Yvkr