Telangana High Court
Md. Farookh vs The State Of Telangana on 7 July, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.13143 of 2021
Between:
Sri Md.Farookh
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana & Others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 07.07.2025
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.13143 OF 2021
% 07.07.2025
Between:
# Sri Md.Farookh
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana & Others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Ganesh
^Counsel for Respondents: AGP 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) 14SCC 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
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.13143 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, 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:
"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs Umadevi, vide impugned Proc. Rc. No. 33-B2/2019 dt 05/08/2019, on the ground that the petitioner is working not more than two hours in a day, contrary to their own correspondence of the respondents as highly illegal, unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice and prays to direct the respondents herein to set aside the impugned Proc. Rc.No. 33-B2/2019, dated 05.08.2019, with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs Umadevi and by following the latest Division Bench Orders of this 4 SN, J Hon'ble Court in WP.No.23057 of 2019, dt 21/04/2020 by reviewing the speaking order, dt 05/08/2019 and pass..."
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-
The petitioner was appointed on 29.12.2001 as a contingent worker in the Zilla GrandhalayaSamstha and was assigned duties in the Book Deposit Centers. Though designated as a part-time employee, the petitioner has been discharging full-time duties from the date of appointment and has rendered continuous service for over '20' years. The petitioner initially received a consolidated pay of Rs.150/-, which was later enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per month, despite performing duties on par with regular employees without being accorded regular status or service benefits.
It is further the case of the petitioner that despite multiple representations and recommendations made by the Director of Public Libraries such as Rc.No.121-B2/1986 dated 05.09.1986 and Rc.No.88-B3/2008 dated 30.12.2008 acknowledging the full-
time nature of duties performed by part-time employees and recommending their regularization, no action was taken in the 5 SN, J petitioner's case. Further, official communications including Rc.
No. 118-A2/2012 dated 24.04.2012, and letters dated 03.10.2007 and 25.11.1993, clearly endorsed regularization of such employees who had completed 5 to 10 years of continuous service.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further relies on the decision in O.A. No. 1438 of 2006, dated 11.02.2010the A.P. Administrative Tribunal directed the payment of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to similarly situated employees. The said order was upheld by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 28140 of 2010, dismissed on 20.02.2013, and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 12558 of 2014, dismissed on 19.08.2014. However, the benefits flowing from these decisions have not been extended to the petitioner.
It is further the case of the petitioner that in spite of judicial finality on the issue, the respondents rejected the petitioner's claim vide Proc. Rc.No.33-B2/2019, dated 05.08.2019, on the ground that the petitioner was working for only two hours a day. The case of the petitioner is that similarly 6 SN, J placed employees in other government departments, such as Panchayat Raj and Health, are being paid wages on par with last grade employees along with admissible allowances like DA and HRA, whereas the petitioner continues to receive only nominal wages despite long years of service.
The petitioner earlier approached this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 12858 of 2019 seeking regularization. However, the claim was rejected by the respondents vide Proc. Rc. No. 33- B2/2019 dated 05.08.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD:-
(A) The order impugned Rc.No.33-B2/2019, dated
05.08.2019 passed by the Director of Public Libraries, Telangana, Hyderabad in compliance to the direction of this Court, dated 26.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.12858 of 2019 is extracted hereunder:-
"In compliance to the Hon'ble High Court order's De:26.06.2019 APKNa12858/2019 by Sri A. Venkatesham. S/o Mallaiah & 47 others, Book Deposit Centre in charge 1st cited, the following speaking orders were issued.
The issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order directing the petitioners to submit a 7 SN, J representation to the respondents in this court in Writ Petition No 6765 of 2019 dt. 29.03.2019 and disposed seeking regularization within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On receipt of such representations, the respondents shall consider the same in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs Umadevi and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law".
With the above observations the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs"
Sri A. Venkatesham s/o Mallaiah & 47 others Book Deposit Centre in charge is hereby informed that the book Deposit Centers in the Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas are opened as per the local need, one delivery station for each village or a group of villages.
In view of the above and due to local demand from the public to open new libraries in the villages and towns and due to ban on opening of new libraries, Book Deposit Centers are opened to cater the needs of the public.
Based on the request from villagers Book Deposit Centers have been opened for providing 50 books in a span of fortnight, to enable the villagers to read books whoever is interested in reading, without any sanction orders or specific orders from the Government no spec. fund is created for Book Deposit Centers and the amounts are paid from the cess funds by the Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha.
Accordingly, the petitioners are engaged by Surpanches an voluntary bases to which an amount of Rs. 1500 is provided to Gram Panchayaths to facilitate and maintain the Book Deposit Centers.
These petitioners who are volunteering Book Deposit Centers are not working in sanctioned post and there is no such post created in the Public Libraries system.
With a good intention only to enable the villagers to improve their reading habits Book Deposit Centers are opened and the volunteers are not working continuously full day and they are living at the same place of work and working for limited time and to place the news papers on a 8 SN, J desk for readers. After placing the news paper they are at liberty to work at their own.
The engaged petitioners are not working in sanctioned post and their wages are not paid by the Government and they are not qualified and not been appointed by following proper selection procedure, by giving reasonable opportunity for calling all the eligible persons. The petitioners are engaged by Sarpanches to Volunteer the Book Deposit Centers only.
It is further informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its order in State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi (3 [(2006) 4 SCC (1) categorically held when a person enters a temporary employment are gets engagement on contract or casual & the engagement is not based on proper selection on relevant rules or procedure, is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contract in natural such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post, when an appointment to the post could be made by following proper procedure for selection in the cases concerned in consultation with the public service commission.
All the petitioners are engaged by sarpanches / particularly in the same village and the department is not insisting their full presence and not preventing them from doing other work. The functioning of Book Deposit Centers is limited period (ie., not more than two hours in a day) and petitioners are at liberty to have their own work. The duty of the petitioners is to keep news papers on a desk and to remove the paper Hence, the regularization of Sri A. Venkatesham s/o Mallaiah & 47 others, Book Deposit Centre in charge, does not arise as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs Uma devi.
In view of the above and in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court orders dated 26-06-2019 in W.P.No. No. 12858 of 2019, the plea of petitioner was examined 9 SN, J and considered and it is informed that it is not feasible for consideration and hence rejected".
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the order impugned, vide Rc.No.33-B2/2019, dated 05.08.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent is passed without application of mind and in a routine mechanical manner without examining the relevant record pertaining to the petitioner herein and rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of services of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had not worked in sanctioned post and the petitioner's wages are not paid by the Government and the petitioner is not qualified and the petitioner had not been appointed by following proper selection procedure.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of services is in fact contrary to the Proceedings, dated 05.09.1986, 18.06.2007, 03.10.2007 and 24.04.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent, whereunder the clear recommendations in favour of part time workers, working in Zilla Grandhalaya 10 SN, J Samsthas for regularization of services had been observed and therefore, the order impugned, dated 05.08.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent needs to be set aside.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
7. A bare perusal of the record indicates that vide Rc.No.121-B2/86, dated 05.09.1986, the 3rd respondent addressed to the Secretaries of Zilla Grandhayala Samsthas in the State which in fact, clearly refers to the Proceedings of the Director Proc.Rc.No.121-B2/86, dated 20.06.1986, which indicates the fact of posts being sanctioned for appointment of part-time workers. The same indicates the plea put-forth by the respondents in the counter affidavit and also in the order impugned, dated 05.08.2019 in R.C.No.33-B2/2019 passed by the Director of Public Libraries, Telangana, Hyderabad that there are no sanctioned posts, as not only false, but also contrary to 3rd respondent's own proceedings R.C.No.121- B2/86, dated 20.06.1986.
11
SN, J
8. A bare perusal of the letter Rc.No.132-B3/2004, dated 18.06.2007 of the 3rd respondent addressed to the Secretary to Government (SSA) Education (SSA-LIB) Department, A.P., Hyderabad clearly indicates the fact of Government having sanctioned the posts on consolidated pay and the fact that persons/employees of Public Libraries are working full time for "6" hours a day since more than two decades as on 18.06.2007 and further recommended for sanction of the minimum of the pay scale of last grade service posts plus usual allowances sanctioned in RPS-2005 vide the said letter, dated 18.06.2007.
9. A bare perusal of the letter, dated 03.10.2007 vide R.C.No.132-B2/2004 of the 3rd respondent addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government School Education (SSA) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, which in fact, is a detailed report clearly indicates that part-time workers working in Zilla Grandhayala Samsthas had been working full time "6" hours since last "20" years as on 03.10.2007 as stated and observed in the said letter, dated 03.10.2007.
12
SN, J
10. A bare perusal of the letter, dated 24.04.2012 vide No.118-A2/2012 of the Director of Public Libraries addressed to the Special Chief Secretary to Government (PL) School Education (PE-Libs) Dept, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in fact indicates a clear recommendation for regularization into last Grade Services of part-time/full time consolidated/daily wage/ NMR working as on 25.11.1993 in Public Libraries in the State, duly following a detailed list furnishing all the relevant particulars of part-time/full time consolidated/ daily wage/NMR's working as on 25.11.1993, district wise for perusal and consideration by the Government way back in April, 2012 itself.
11. This Court opines that the impugned proceedings, dated 05.08.2019 vide Rc.No.33-B2/2019 is not only illegal, unconstitutional, but also an indication of a serious effort by the 3rd respondent herein to deny the legitimate rights of the petitioner, by projecting pleas vide the impugned proceedings, dated 05.08.2019 of the 3rd respondent and also the counter affidavit filed in the 13 SN, J present Writ Petition, which are in fact, shockingly contrary to the 3rd respondent's own record and the 3rd respondent's own proceedings.
12. This Court opines that the respondents through their counter affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition not only misled the Court and misrepresented before the Court, but also projected the case of the respondents contrary to their own record, which is in fact a serious lapse on the part of the respondents in presenting the true facts before this Court and hence, this Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for grant of relief, since the subject issue requires reconsideration by the 3rd respondent herein.
13. The recent judgments of the Apex Court and the observations thereunder pertaining to regularization of services of part-time/full-time consolidated/daily wage NMR's are extracted hereunder:-
A) The Judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.12.2024, reported in 2024 Law Suit(SC) 1209 in Jaggo Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant 14 SN, J 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 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 judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)] 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 15 SN, J 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 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 16 SN, J the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
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:
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 17 SN, J for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-
retiral benefits."
B) 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, 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 fulfill ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in 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 18 SN, J 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.
.........
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 19 SN, J 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.
• 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.
20
SN, J
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 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 21 SN, J 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.
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."
22
SN, J C) 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.
(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."23
SN, J D) 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 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 24 SN, J 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 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 25 SN, J 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 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 26 SN, J 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 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.
27
SN, J E) In the Judgment 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 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 28 SN, J 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 practice inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance with the Constitution.
F) 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:
29
SN, J (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.
G) 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 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.
30
SN, J H) 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."
I) 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, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.
14. The order impugned, dated 05.08.2019 vide Rc.No.33-B2/2019 issued by the 3rd respondent indicates a specific plea that the petitioner is not working more than two (02) hours a day apart from other reasons that the petitioner is not working in a sanctioned post and the 31 SN, J wages of the petitioner are not paid by the Government and the petitioner is not qualified and not appointed by following a proper selection procedure. This Court opines that the plea that petitioner is not working more than two (02) hours a day is contrary to the record, since the recommendations in favour of part time workers working in Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha, as borne on record, dated 05.09.1986, 18.06.2007, 03.10.2007 and 24.04.2012 of the 3rd respondent addressed to the State Government indicate that petitioner who had been working as contingent worker in the Zilla Grandhayala Samstha worked full-time since 2006-2007, for six (06) hours a day and not two (02) hours a day.
The other pleas put-forth by the 3rd respondent in the impugned proceedings, dated 05.08.2019 rejecting the request of petitioner for regularization of services had been held as not tenable by the Apex Court in its observations in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) This Court opines that the order impugned, dated 05.08.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent is contrary to its 32 SN, J own record and its own correspondence in particular, the letters addressed by the 3rd respondent to the Government pertaining to the subject issue i.e., Regularization of Services of part-time workers working in Zilla Grandhayala Samsthas and therefore, the subject issue pertaining to petitioner's request for regularization of services needs to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent in accordance to law.
15. Taking into consideration:-
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents,
c) The judgment, dated 26.06.2019 passed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.12858 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above),
d) The order impugned Rc.No.33-B2/2019, dated 05.08.2019 passed by the Director of Public Libraries, Telangana, Hyderabad in compliance to the direction of 33 SN, J this Court, dated 26.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.12858 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above),
e) The specific averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner that the petitioner is continuously working since 22.11.2006 as BDC In-charge in Zilla Grandalaya Samstha,
f) The contents of the letters, dated 05.09.1986, 18.06.2007, 03.10.2007 and 24.04.2012 of the 3rd respondent addressed to the State Government pertaining to regularization of Services of part-time workers working in Zilla Grandhayala Samsthas,
g) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:
(i) 2025 INSC 144
(ii) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209
(iii) (2017) 1 SCC 148
(iv) 2010(9) SCC 247
(v) (2013) 14SCC 65
(vi) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797
(vii) (2015) 8 SCC 265
(viii) (2014) 7 SCC 223
(ix) SLP No.32847 of 2024
34
SN, J
The Writ Petition is allowed. The order impugned Rc.No.33-B2/2019, dated 05.08.2019 passed by the Director of Public Libraries, Telangana, Hyderabad is set aside, duly taking into consideration the clear recommendations in favour of the part-time workers working in Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas which are in fact as borne on record in favour of the petitioner vide Letters/Proceedings, dated 05.09.1986, 18.06.2007, 03.10.2007 and 24.04.2012 of the 3rd respondent addressed to the State Government and the subject issue pertaining to the request of the petitioner seeking regularization of services of the petitioner is remitted back to the 3rd respondent herein, and the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's request for regularization of services, duly verifying clear recommendation, dated 05.09.1986, 18.06.2007, 03.10.2007 and 24.04.2012 issued by the Director of Public Libraries by duly examining the relevant records pertaining to the petitioner and examining the same in light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and 35 SN, J pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and duly communicate the decision pertaining to the request of the petitioner for regularization of services of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of petitioner's initial appointment and for release of all consequential benefits to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 07.07.2025 Note:
Issue CC by today L.R.Copy to be marked (B/o) ktm