Telangana High Court
Dr.Chinni Srinivas Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.27590 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University.
2. The petitioners initially approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
"....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ:
(i) Declare that the Petitioners are entitled for regularization as per Section 10 A of Act 1994 and G.O. Ms. No. 16, Finance (HRM.I) Department, dated 26-2-2016 and Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka (2006 (4) SCC 1) in terms of the proposal sent by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent dated: 06.08.2019 and 28.05.2019 respectively;
(ii) Declare the letter No. 3749/UE/A1/2017, dated 2-
11-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of the Writ Petition and consequently set aside the same;"
(iii) Declare that the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated: 19.11.2019 and consequential proceedings dated: 27.02.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same;2
SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022
(iv) Direct the Respondents for regularization / absorption of the services of the Petitioners in the cadre of Asst. Professors as per G.O. Ms. No. 16, Finance (HRM.I) Department, dated 26-2-2016 and Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka (2006 (4) SCC 1) in terms of the proposal sent by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent, and
(v) pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not insisting for the prayer as sought for in so far as regularization of the petitioners is concerned as per Section 10(A) of Act, 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.16 Finance (HRM.I) Department dated 26.02.2016 and confines the case of the petitioners and also the relief prayed for in the present Writ Petition to the extent of consideration of petitioners' case in accordance to law as per the proposals sent by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 06.08.2019 and 28.05.2019 respectively.
4. The case of the petitioners in brief as per the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition is as under:
3
SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 The petitioners are part time lecturers in the cadre of Assistant Professors working in the 3rd respondent University and its constituent colleges since the year 1995. The petitioners possess the requisite qualifications as per the UGC regulations for the post of Assistant Professors and had been selected and appointed by the Selection Committee as part Time Lecturers in the year 1995 and since then petitioners are continuing in service till as on date. Most of the petitioners are above 55 years age and though they had been working in the sanctioned posts their cases had not been considered for regularization as on date.
It is further the case of the petitioners that in spite of the specific proposals sent in favour of the petitioners by the 2nd & 3rd respondents, dated 06.08.2019 and 28.05.2019 to the respondent No.1 their cases for regularization had not been considered as on date. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
5. The relevant portion of the proposals dated 06.08.2019 of the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 is extracted hereunder:
4
SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 "In this connection, I submit that the 12 Assistant Professors (Contract) working in Osmania University have fulfilled the service conditions of Osmania University for regularization of their services and also conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.16 Finance Dept. 20.6.2016. Further, as the above Contract Faculty were appointed prior to 10.4.1996 and put in 10 years of service as on 10.4.2006, they will not come within the purview of the interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.4.2017 in WP (Pil) MP No.204/2017 in WP (Pil) No.122/2017. Thus, they have become eligible for regularization of their services."
6. The relevant portion of the proposals dated 28.05.2019 of the respondent no.3 to the respondent No.1 is extracted hereunder:
It is to state that, the Assistant Professors (contract) who are appointed prior 1996 and seeking regularization fulfill the following conditions for regularization of this services:
1. They possess required qualification as per the UGC Regulations for appointment as Assistant Professors.
2. They have faced College level Selection Committee at the time of their initial appointment into the University service.
3. They are presently, working under Regular Courses against clear vacancy.
4. They have completed 10 years of University service by 2006.
They also fulfill the conditions laid down for regularization as per G.O. Ms. No.16 Fianance Department dated 26.02.2016 and the Supreme Court judgment in Umadevi, State of Karnataka."
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the Writ Petition has to be allowed as prayed for in view of the specific proposals 5 SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 borne on record sent in favour of the petitioners by the respondent Nos.2 & 3, dated 06.08.2019 and 28.05.2019 respectively (referred to and extracted above)
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services- placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.10744, 11643, 13223 14300 of 2023 and W.P.(TR).No.5972 of 2017, contend that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.
9. The Apex Court in its recent judgments pertaining to regularization of services observed as under:-_ A) 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 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 6 SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 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.
.........
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 7 SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 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.
• 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 8 SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 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 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.9
SN,J W.P.No.27590_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." B) 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 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.10
SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022
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)] 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.11
SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022
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 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 12 SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 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 for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits." C) The Apex Court in the judgment in "Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others" reported in 2024 9 SCC 327, dated 30.01.2024 held that the reliance on procedural formalities at the outset, cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that an accrued over a considerable period through continuous service and the failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent 13 SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness and the intent behind employment regularization. In the said judgment at para No.9, it had been observed as under:-
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be considered for regularization in their respective posts. The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularization within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.
The appellants in the above referred case had approached the Court arguing that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to recognize the substantive nature of their duties, which align with regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme- based roles, they were originally appointed for. The Tribunal had dismissed the applications of the appellants concluding that their appointments were temporary and for a specific scheme, thus not entitling them to regularization or absorption into permanent post and the appellants have approached the High Court and the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed their writ petitions observing that the appellants' employment under temporary scheme could not confer upon them, the rights akin to those held by permanent 14 SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 employees and relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 vol.4 SCC (1) which held that the temporary or casual employees do not have a fundamental rights to be absorbed into service. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
10. This Court opines that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents do not apply to the facts of the present case.
11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that in so far as the prayer pertaining to the regularization of the petitioners is concerned, it is only the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the competent Authorities concerned to take a decision on the subject issue in accordance to law.
12. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions put-forth by both the learned counsel on record, taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court in its recent judgments (referred to and extracted above) pertaining to regularization referred to and discussed above and again enlisted hereunder:-15
SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022
i) Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others" reported in 2024 9 SCC 327,
ii) Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others" reported in 2024 SCC online SC 3826
iii)Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad"
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the request of the petitioners for regularization in accordance to law in conformity with the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) in terms of the proposals sent by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 06.08.2019 and 28.05.2019 respectively (referred to and extracted above) which clearly indicate that petitioners admittedly had been appointed prior to 1996, and they possess the required qualifications as per the UGC Regulations for appointment as Assistant Professors and further that they faced college level Selection Committee at the time of their initial appointment prior to 1996 and are presently working under regular courses against clear 16 SN,J W.P.No.27590_2022 vacancy and had been in continuous service from the date of their initial appointment till as on date and pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioners herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 30.04.2025 LPD