[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Smt. G. Saramma vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 26 March, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.7468 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri P.Srinivasulu, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of
respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer
as under:
“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that
the action of the respondents in not regularizing the
services of the petitioner as office subordinate, as illegal
and consequently, to direct the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioner on par with her
juniors or from the date of completion of 10 years, with
all consequential benefits and to pass such other
order…”.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner
was appointed as a part time contingent sweeper on 01.03.1986
and converted in to a full time contingent sweeper with effect
from 29.09.2008. The petitioner had completed 37 years of
continuous service from the date of initial appointment till the
SN, J
2 WP_7468_2023
filing of this writ petition and her service is not regularized.
However the services of the petitioner’s juniors, who were also
appointed as part time contingent sweepers, got regularized and
absorbed as office subordinates in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212,
dated 22.04.1994.
Further it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
made a representation to the superintending engineer on
19.08.2015 for her Regularisation into last grade service but the
memo was rejected vide memo dated 31.08.2015 stating that
incumbent should complete 10 years of service to convert into
last grade service even though the petitioner completed his 10
years of service by march 1996 itself. Aggrieved by the same the
petitioner preferred this writ petition.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD.
(A) The proceedings dated 31.08.2015 of the 6th
respondent herein is extracted hereunder:
“OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DIVISION NO.3
OF CCH., K.C.COLONY, HANAMKONDAMemo No.EE/Divn.3/CCH/C1/1417/M/140 Date:31-08-2015.
Sub: Esst-I&CAD – Application of Smt G.Saramma, Full Time
Contingent Sweeper – Request for regularization to Last
Grade Service as Sweeper – Submission of -Reg.
Ref: 1) Application Smt. G.Saramma, FTCGS forwarded by the
Deputy Executive Engineer, Sub.Division.No.3 vide
Endt.No.DEE/SD3/Dn3/CCH/228. Dated: 19-8-2015.
SN, J
3 WP_7468_2023
2) ENC Memo No.ENC/1W/P&M/NTPA/W2/422/
2010 Vol-II Dated:05.02.2015.
***
With reference to the 1st cited above Smt G.
Saramma, FTCGS has requested to regularize her
services into Last Grade Services as Sweeper as she
has completed 7 years of service as Full Time Contingent
Sweeper.
But as per Engineer-in-Chief circular memo vide
reference 2nd cited above as clearly stated that
incumbent should complete 10 years of service to
convert into Last Grade Service. Hence the Original
application is herewith returned.
Executive Engineer
Divin.No.3/CCH HNK”
(B) The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent No.6 and in particular, para Nos.12 and 13 are
extracted hereunder:
“12. In reply to Para 7, it is respectfully submit that the
petitioner’s statement is not correct as the petitioner
Smt.G.Saramma has not completed 10 years of service in
Part Time Sweeper as on 25.11.1993 as per G.O.No.112,
dt.23.7.97 and also never worked as Full Time Contingent
worker as on 25.11.1993 as per G.O. No.212, dt.22.4.94
since she was worked Part Time worker from 01.3.86 to
28.9.2008 and Full Time worker from 29.9.2008 onwards
only vide Superintending Engineer, GVC-IV. LMD Colony,
Karimnagar Proc. No. E4/GVC.4/1265-68, dt: 29.09.2008.
Further, the Petitioner made application to the
Superintending Engineer, GVC-IV, LMD Colony, Karimnagar
SN, J
4 WP_7468_2023to convert her service as Last Grade Service. But
Engineer-in-Chief Memo dated: 31.08.2015 clearly
stated thatincumbent should complete 10 years of service to convert
into Last Grade Service. It is also submit that the Petitioner
working in this office since 11/2016 and she has not given
any representation in this regard to this office.
13. In reply to Para 8, it is respectfully submit that the
petitioner Smt.G.Saramma belongs to Warangal District
and she is claiming retrospective regularization of services
with other District employees Sri D.Sailoo Karimnagar and
Sri M.Abdul Karim Nizamabad which is against the
G.O.610/G.P.Ms.No.128, GAD, dt.30.06.2021 and also the
said persons are not similar to her. The petitioner is not
fulfill conditions in terms of G.O.No.112, dt.23.7.1997
since 7 years & 8 months as Part Time Sweeper as on
25.11.1993, not having 10 years as Part Time Sweeper on
25.11.93 and also not fulfill conditions in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22.4.1994 since she never worked as
Full Time Contingent Sweeper as on 25.11.1993.”
(C) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the 6th respondent disputing the averments
made in the counter affidavit and specifically contended
that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in
SN, J
5 WP_7468_2023
the present writ petition and the petitioner
specifically averred at para 3 of the reply affidavit as
under:
“3. It is respectfully submitted that, I was appointed as a
part-time sweeper in the year 01-03-1986 by Proceedings
dated 20-05-1986, Later Sri Abdul Karim was also
appointed as a part-time sweeper on 22-10-1986 who is
junior to me was regularized and absorbed as office
subordinate, even without completion of 5 years of service
from the date of his appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.92
dated 9-9-2010 in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212, dated
22.4.1994. It is also further submitted that Sri D. Sailoo
who was appointed as part-time watch man was also
regularized and absorbed as office subordinate as per
G.O.M.s.94 dated 18-09-2010 in terms of G.O.M.s.No.212
dated 22-04-1994. Who was also appointed later my
appointment, he was also given pay fixation along with me
by order dated 09-06-2010. The action of the respondents
in not regularizing my services is highly arbitrary illegal
and discriminatory. Both Abdul Karim and Sailoo also
did not complete the stipulated period of 5 years as
per G.O.Ms.No.212 dt 22-04-1994 and also a person
cannot be discriminated on the basis of local status
and in terms of place of work and it should be seen
as a within the state. I submit that the respondents
cannot discriminate and deprive my right to
regularization as office subordinate or sweeper,
since I have been working more than 39 years of
SN, J
6 WP_7468_2023
continuous unblemished service in respondents
divisions.”
DISUCSSION AND CONCLUSON:
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner
made a representation to the Superintendent Engineer on
19.08.2015 for petitioner’s conversion into Last Grade Service
and for regularization to the Last Grade Service as Sweeper. But
the said application of the petitioner dated 19.08.2015 had been
returned by the 6th respondent on the ground that the petitioner
did not complete 10 years of service to convert into Last Grade
Service as Sweeper and the petitioner had completed only 7
years of service as Full Time Contingent Sweeper.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
by filing a reply affidavit disputes the said plea taken in the
proceedings dated 31.08.2015 of the Executive Engineer i.e., the
6th respondent herein, and contends that petitioner is in
continuous service as Sweeper since 1986.
7. The specific plea taken in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent that the petitioner did not fulfill conditions in terms
of G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997 and the petitioner had 7
SN, J
7 WP_7468_2023
years and 8 months as Part Time Sweeper as on 25.11.1993
and the petitioner is not having 10 years service as Part Time
Sweeper on 25.11.1993 and further that the petitioner never
worked as Full Time Contingent Sweeper as on 25.11.1993.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
the respondents places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex
Court dated 07.10.2021 reported in (2021) 20 SCC 290 in
“UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. ILMO DEVI AND
ANOTHER“.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court dated
20.12.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the Apex Court
reported in “JAGGO ANITHA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS”, in support of petitioner’s case and contends that
the petitioner thereunder has a right for the regularization and
the same right exists even for the petitioner herein and the same
cannot be denied to petitioner on frivolous pleas.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to submit
any documents in support of petitioner’s case to prove that the
petitioner completed 10 years of service to convert into Last
SN, J
8 WP_7468_2023
Grade Service and the petitioner may be directed to
approach the respondents herein by way of a fresh
representation duly enclosing all the relevant documents in
support of petitioner’s case in view of the fact that the
application of the petitioner seeking conversion into the Last
Grade Service addressed to the Superintendent Engineer on
19.08.2015 had not been rejected by the respondents herein but
had been returned.
10. In 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 be
SN, J
9 WP_7468_2023appropriate 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.
SN, J
10 WP_7468_2023• 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.
• 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
SN, J
11 WP_7468_2023
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
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.
SN, J
12 WP_7468_2023II. 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.
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.”
11. The judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.12.2024,
reported in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jaggo Anita and
SN, J
13 WP_7468_2023
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.
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
SN, J
14 WP_7468_2023agencies 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
SN, J
15 WP_7468_2023the 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 the
SN, J
16 WP_7468_2023judgment’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
SN, J
17 WP_7468_2023Tribunal 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.”
12. The various Judgments of the Apex Court pertaining to
regularization of services of temporary employees/daily
wage/adhoc/Casual employees are enlisted below:
(i) 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).
(ii) 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.
SN, J
18 WP_7468_2023
(iii) In the judgement of the Apex Court in Nihal
Singh and others v. State of Punjab reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 65.
(iv) 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.
(v) In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported
(2015) 8 SCC 265.
(vi) 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 :
(vii) 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.
13. Taking into consideration:
SN, J
19 WP_7468_2023
(i) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case,
(ii) The submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents,
(iii) The contents of the letter dated 31.08.2015 of
the 6th respondent addressed to the petitioner,
(iv) The averments made in the counter affidavit
filed by the 6th respondent, in particular at para Nos. 12
and 13 (referred to and extracted above),
(v) The averments made in the reply affidavit filed
by the petitioner in particular at para 3 (referred to and
extracted above),
(vi) 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) SLP No.32847 of 2024
SN, J
20 WP_7468_2023
The Writ Petition is allowed, the petitioner is
directed to approach the respondents herein by way of a
detailed representation putting forth the petitioner’s pleas
as put forth in the present writ petition and also the
specific plea of the petitioner that the petitioner
completed 10 years of service to convert into Last Grade
Service as Sweeper duly enclosing all the supportive
documents in support of the said plea of the petitioner,
within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the said
representation of the petitioner with all the relevant
documents, the 6th respondent is directed to consider the
request of the petitioner for regularization of service of
the petitioner as Office Subordinate on par with
petitioner’s juniors or from the date of completion of
service of 10 years since it is the specific case of the
petitioner that the Juniors to the petitioner had been
regularized after completion of 10 years and the
petitioner had been discriminated in accordance to law, in
conformity with principles of natural justice by giving an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner duly
SN, J
21 WP_7468_2023taking into consideration the observations of the
Apex Court in the various Judgments referred to and
extracted above and pass appropriate orders within a
period of four (04) weeks thereafter and duly
communicate the decision to the petitioner. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 26.03.2025
Yvkr
SN, J
22 WP_7468_2023
171
3101
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.7468 OF 2023
DATE: 26.03.2025
Yvkr
[ad_2]
Source link