Telangana High Court
Sri. E.Venkateswarlu vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 1 April, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.20382 OF 2022
Between:
Sri E.Venkateswarlu
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana & 2 others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.04.2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.20382 OF 2022
% 01.04.2025
Between:
# Sri E.Venkateswarlu
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana & 2 others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Jurispath
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Asst. G.P. for Services-I
? Cases Referred:
(i) 2025 INSC 144
(ii) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209
(iii) (2017) 1 SCC 148
(iv) 2010(9) SCC 247
(v) (2013) 14 SCC 65
(vi) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797
(vii) (2015) 8 SCC 265
(viii) (2014) 7 SCC 223
(ix) SLP No.32847 of 2024
3 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.20382 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri Jurispath, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of
the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer
as under:
“(a)…to issue a writ or order or direction, more
particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in not
regularizing the services of the petitioner in the post of
Water man cum Gardener/ Attender in the 3rd
respondent college without extending the benefit of
G.O.MS.No.212, 22.04.1994 on par with similarly
situated persons, who got regularized in view of the
G.O.Ms.No.212, as per the orders in W.P.(TR).No.5110
of 2017, dated 10.08.2018 and W.P.No.16414 of 2019,
dated 02.08.2019 which arises as per the analogy laid
down in O.A.No.6988 of 1996, dated 14.09.1999, which
was confirmed by the High court in W.P.No.16029 of
2000 dated 19.07.2010 is arbitrary, bad and illegal and
violation of the principles of natural justice and Article
14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to have
his services regularized under the guise of
G.O.Ms.No.212, with all consequential benefits, pay,
4 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022arrears of pay, increments on the analogy of the orders
passed in the above matters, in the interest of justice.
(b) …for the reasons and circumstances stated
above, the Hon’ble Court may be please to set
aside the proceedings issued by the 2nd
respondent vide RC.No.OP.1-1/1559453/2022
dated 08.06.2022, in the interest of justice.”
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner
was appointed as a Waterman-cum-Gardener on a consolidated
pay of Rs.75/- in respondent No.3 college on 27.01.1986, under
Rule 10 (a) (1) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service
Rules, and has been in continuous service since then. The
petitioner claimed entitlement to regularization under
G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, which was introduced to
regularize the services of employees who worked continuously
for a minimum period of 5 years before 25.11.1993. Despite
filing O.A.No.6920 of 1996 and O.A.No.350 of 2000 for
regularization of the petitioner’s service and the respondents
having been directed by the Administrative Tribunal and the High
Court to consider regularization, the respondents rejected the
petitioner’s claim vide proceedings dated 08.06.2022, stating
that the petitioner’s appointment was “Part-Time,” even though
the petitioner worked full-time and performed additional duties,
5 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
including sweeping the college premises. It is further the case of
the petitioner that similarly situated employees, namely Mr. N.
Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed, had their services regularized
through similar legal proceedings, including O.A.No.6988 of
1996, W.P.No.16029 of 2000, W.P.(TR)No.5110 of 2017, and
W.P.No.16414 of 2019, which were decided in favor of the
applicants, confirming their entitlement to regularization. The
petitioner submitted a representation on 17.03.2022, requesting
regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, but the same was not
considered. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents in
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, the
petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition.
4. PERSUED THE RECORD
5. The impugned order vide RC.No.OP.1-
1/1559453/2022, dated 08.06.2022 passed by
respondent No.2 is extracted hereunder:
“Sub:- SUITS – W.P.No.20382/2022, filed by
Sri E. Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum
Gardener, Government Junior College (Girls),
Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District, Old
6 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
Warangal District – for regularisation of services –
Not feasible of compliance – Orders – Issued
Read:-1] Government Memo.No.475/IE.A2/2022,
dated 16/05/2022
2] Hon’ble High Court Orders dated
22/04/2022 in W.P.No.20382/2022, filed by Sri
E. Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum
Gardener, GJC (Girls), Mahabubabad,
Mahabubabad District
2] Representation dated 14/03/2022 of
Sri E Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum
Gardener, Government Junior College (Girls),
Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District
*****
Sri E. Venkateswarlu was engaged as
Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener at
Government Junior College (Girls),
Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District with
effect from 28/01/1986.
The individual filed W.P.No.20382/2022 in
Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and
prayed for regularisation of his services in terms
of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance, dated 22.04.1994.
The Hon’ble High Court in its interim orders
dated 22/04/2022 has directed the respondent to
7 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
consider the representation of the petitioner
dated 14/03/2022 within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Government have formulated a scheme
for regularisation of Part-Time employees in
G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A.D., dated 23.07.1997 that
those who had worked continuously for a
minimum service of ten (10) years in a
sanctioned vacancy and must be continuing as
on 25.11.1993, subject to fulfilment of certain
conditions stipulated therein. Since the
incumbent was appointed as Part-Time employee
on 14/11/1986 and not completed the requisite
10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 as Part-
Time Contingent, he is not eligible for
regularisation of his services in terms
of G.O.Ms.No.112, General Administration
Department, dated 23 07.1997.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its
judgement dated 06.07.2009 in Civil Appeal
No.3702/2006 and batch (ManjulaBhashin
case) has issued orders that “the daily wage
employees and others who are covered by
Section 7 of the 1994 Act (amended) and whose
services have not been regularized so far, shall
be entitled to be considered for regularization
and their services shall be regularized subject to
8 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
fulfilment of the conditions enumerated in
G.O.212, dated 22.04.1994. With a view to
obviate further litigation on this issue, we direct
the Government of Andhra Pradesh, its Officers
and agencies/ instrumentalities of the State to
complete the exercise for regularization of the
services of eligible employees within four months
of the receipt/production of copy of this order,
without being influenced by the fact that the
application, writ petition or appeal filed by any
such employee may have been dismissed by the
Tribunal or High court or this Court. Since some
of the appeal decided by this order relate to Part-
Time employees, we direct that similar exercise
be undertaken in their cases and completed
within four months keeping in view the
conditions enumerated in G.O.(P)No.112,
dated 23.07.1997.
Sri E. Venkateswarlu was engaged as Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener at Government Junior College (Girls), Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District on
28/01/1986. Hence, he has not completed
10 years of service as on 25/11/1993 for
regularisation of services as per
G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A.D., dated 23.07.1997.
Therefore, his request for regularisation of
9 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212.
Finance, dated 22.04.1994 is not feasible
and hence rejected.”
6. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondents, and in particular, paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8
of the said counter-affidavit are extracted hereunder:
“6. It is submitted that, the Petitioner was
engaged as Part-Time Contingent Waterman
Cum Gardener at Government Junior College for
Girls, Mahabubabad on 27/01/1986. Since, he is
a Part-Time Employee, his case does not
comes under the preview of G.O.Ms.No.212,
Finance and Planning Department, dated:
22.04.1994. Further, the Petitioner has not
completed 10 years of service as on
25/11/1993 for regularisation of services
as per G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A D., dated
23.07.1997.
7. It is further submitted that, the Hon’ble
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad in its
interim orders dated 22/04/2022 in
W.P.No.20382/2022 filed by Sri E.
Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum
Gardener, Government Junior College (Girls),
10 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District made
the following order:
“Hence, there shall be interim direction to
the respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated
14/03/2022”.
8. It is submitted that, accordingly his case
was considered and rejected vide this Proceeding
Rc.No.OP1-1/1559453/2022 dt 08.06.2022,
since, the petitioner is a Part-Time Employee, his
case does not come under the purview of
G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning
Department, dated 22.04.1994. Further, the
Petitioner has not completed 10 years of service
as on 25/11/1993 for regularisation of services
as per G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A.D., dated
23.07.1997, as the said petitioner is only the
part time employee. Hence the
case was rejected.”
7. The Judgment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2025
reported in 2025 INSC 144 in “SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v.
NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD“, in particular, the relevant
para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:
“15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over several years,
11 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain
muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer’s
failure to furnish such records–despite directions to do
so–allows an adverse inference under well-established
labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be dismissed
summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a
genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite
“temporary” employment practices as done by a recent
judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the
following paragraphs:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects
workers’ rights and job security. In the private
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an
increase in precarious employment arrangements,
often characterized by lack of benefits, job security,
and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining
labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted
with upholding the principles of fairness and justice,
bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public
sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a
concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
………
12 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While
the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may
have been to address short-term or seasonal needs,
they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations
owed to employees. These practices manifest in
several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged
for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to
the functioning of an institution are often labelled as
“temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles
mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen
in the present case. This practice undermines the
principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality
or duration of their service. • Lack of Career
Progression: Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises.
They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being
equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively replacing one set
of exploited workers with another. This practice not
only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates
a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
13 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.”
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s
inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently,
it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some
measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only
perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were
left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status.
While the High Court recognized the importance of their
work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to
afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages
commensurate with the degree of statutory violation
evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s
discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in
violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is
established that their services were terminated without
adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in
essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be
relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of
municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules
merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the
Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable
14 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot
trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended
period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent
they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage
engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages,
is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s
services, effected without compliance with Section 6E
and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, is declared illegal. All orders or
communications terminating their services are
quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen
shall be treated as continuing in service from the
date of their termination, for all purposes, including
seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the
Appellant
Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to
the duties they previously performed) within four
weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire
period of absence (from the date of termination until
actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity
of service and all consequential benefits, such as
seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant
Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages
from the date of their discontinuation until their
actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall
clear the aforesaid dues within three months from
the date of their reinstatement.
15 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a
fair and transparent process for regularizing the
Appellant Workmen within six months from the date
of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they
have performed perennial municipal duties akin to
permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the
Employer shall not impose educational or procedural
criteria retroactively if such requirements were never
applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly
situated regular employees in the past. To the extent
that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are
required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all
necessary administrative processes to ensure these
longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on
daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable
norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the
workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the
Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.”
8. The judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.12.2024,
reported in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jaggo Anita and
others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant
paragraph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted
hereunder:
“12. Despite being labelled as “part-
time workers,” the appellants performed
these essential tasks on a daily and
continuous basis over extensive periods,
ranging from over a decade to nearly two
decades. Their engagement was not
16 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it
was recurrent, regular, and akin to the
responsibilities typically associated with
sanctioned posts. Moreover, the
respondents did not engage any other
personnel for these tasks during the
appellants tenure, underscoring the
indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that
these were not regular posts lacks merit,
as the nature of the work performed by the
appellants was perennial and fundamental
to the functioning of the offices. The
recurring nature of these duties necessitates
their classification as regular posts, irrespective
of how their initial engagements were labelled.
It is also noteworthy that subsequent
outsourcing of these same tasks to private
agencies after the appellants’ termination
demonstrates the inherent need for these
services. This act of outsourcing, which
effectively replaced one set of workers with
another further underscores that the work in
question was neither temporary nor occasional.
24. The landmark judgement of the United
State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft
Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)]
17 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022serves as a pertinent example from the private
sector, illustrating the consequences of
misclassifying employees to circumvent
providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft
classified certain workers as independent
contractors, thereby denying them employee
benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit determined that these workers were, in
fact, common-law employees and were entitled
to the same benefits as regular employees. The
Court noted that large Corporations have
increasingly adopted the practice of hiring
temporary employees or independent
contractors as a means of avoiding payment of
employee benefits, thereby increasing their
profits. This judgment underscores the principle
that the nature of the work performed, rather
than the label assigned to the worker, should
determine employment status and the
corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights
the judiciary’s role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that
workers receive fair treatment.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)
sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries
and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its
18 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied
to deny legitimate claims of long serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments.
It categorically held that employees in
irregular appointments, who were engaged
in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years
should be considered for regularization as
a one-time measure. However, the laudable
intent of the judgment is being subverted when
institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately
reject the claims of employees, even in cases
where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the
judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no
vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases
where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the
judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively
weaponizing it against employees who
have rendered indispensable services over
decades.
19 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
27. In light of these considerations, in our
opinion, it is imperative for government
departments to lead by example in providing fair
and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially
when their roles are integral to the
organization’s functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes
the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring
fair employment practices, government
institutions can reduce the burden of
unnecessary litigation, promote job
security, and uphold the principles of
justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with
international standards and sets a positive
precedent for the private sector to follow,
thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the
country.
28. In view of the above discussion and
findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
orders passed by the High Court and the
Tribunal are set aside and the original
application is allowed to the following extent:
20 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022i. The termination orders dated
27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back
on duty forthwith and their services
regularised forthwith. However, the
appellants shall not be entitled to any
pecuniary benefits/back wages for the
period they have not worked for but would
be entitled to continuity of services for the
said period and the same would be counted
for their post-retiral benefits.”
9. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2017) 1
Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Punjab and others
vs Jagjit Singh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-paras
(1)(2)(3), of the said judgment observed as under:
“54 “The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating
upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary
employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-
scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by
daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench
however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell
in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at
the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The
exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee
against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after
undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and
equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates,
shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from
the date of engagement.
21 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees
are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and
their services are availed continuously, with notional
breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities
for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily
wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled
to minimum of the regular pay scale without any
allowances on the assumption that work of perennial
nature is available and having worked for such long period
of time, an equitable right is created in such category of
persons. Their claim for regularization, if any, may have
to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible
scheme.
(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale
after more than three years and two months of
completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily
wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to
arrears for a period of three years and two months.”
10. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2010(9)
SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v
M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, paras 4 to 9 reads as
under:
4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered
on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In that case, a
Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made
without following the due process or the rules relating to
appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and
courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re-
engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,
regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment
had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the
constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in
ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic
arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities,
nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing
of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further
22 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage
employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent
unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in
adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court
however made one exception to the above position and the
same is extracted below :
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments)
as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) SCR 128],
R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N.
Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] and referred to in para 15
above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant
posts might have been made and the employees have
continued to work for ten years or more but without the
intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The
question of regularization of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in the
light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases
abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that
context, the Union of India, the State Governments and
their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a
one-time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the
courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that
regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant
sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases
where temporary employees or daily wagers are being
now employed. The process must be set in motion within
six months from this date. ….
“5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception
to the general principles against `regularization’ enunciated in
Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled :
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or
more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of
the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the
State Government or its instrumentality should have employed
the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal,
even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or
23 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons
appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications,
the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the
person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and
was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected
without undergoing the process of open competitive selection,
such appointments are considered to be irregular.
(iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or
instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those
irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than
ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders
of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed
that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six
months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006).
6. The term `one-time measure’ has to be understood in its
proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the
decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality
should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all
casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working
for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and
tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to
whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the
requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their
services.
7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in
Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees
were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several
departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-
time regularization process. On the other hand, some
Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the
one-time exercise excluding several employees from
consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending
in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the
employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para
53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be
considered for regularization, merely because the one-time
exercise was completed without considering their cases, or
because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi
has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-
wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of
continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the
protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any
24 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of
Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who
were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer
concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of
the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded
only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered
in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.
8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is
two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more
than ten years of continuous service without the protection of
any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of
decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for
regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure
that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the
practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for
long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground
that they have served for more than ten years, thereby
defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to
recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is
that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on
10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the
protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in
vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled
to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer
has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six
months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was
undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle
such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in
terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time
measure.
9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years
after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat,
Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of
regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or
thereafter.
10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the
cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with
law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of
Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now
undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time
regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily
wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if
25 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill
the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill
them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise
has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases
of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases,
then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of
the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to
say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of
Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If
the employees who have completed ten years service do not
possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at
the time of their appointment, they may be considered for
regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
11. In the judgement of the Apex Court in Nihal Singh
and others v. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 14 SCC
65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption
of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose
wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their
services were made available. It held that the mere fact
that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the
appellants ’employees’ of those Banks since the
appointment was made by the State and disciplinary
control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a
cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter
exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the
State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make
appointments of persons creating contractual
26 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to
accept the defence that there were no sanctioned posts
and so there was justification for the State to utilise
services of large number of people like the appellants for
decades. It held that “sanctioned posts do not fall from
heaven” and that the State has to create them by a
conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment
of need. Referring to Umadevi, it held that the appellants
before them were not arbitrarily chosen, their initial
appointment was not an ‘irregular’ appointment as it had
been made in accordance with the statutory procedure
prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State
cannot be heard to say that they are not entitled to be
absorbed into the services of the State on permanent
basis as, according to it, their appointments were purely
temporary and not against any sanctioned posts created
by the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi
cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and
its instrumentalities and neither the Government of
Punjab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a
27 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
practice inconsistent with their obligation to function in
accordance with the Constitution.
12. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2015
SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivalusu and others v
Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Commissioner,
Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular
paras 7 and 8 reads as under:
(7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the
High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization
flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant
have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the
issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of
G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory
body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above
mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years
without regularising the service of the appellants and continued
to extract work from the appellants.
8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above
mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached
the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the
circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under
appeal by directing that the appellants’ services be regularised
with effect from the date of their completing their five year
continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District
Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8)
SCC 480.
13. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported (2015) 8
SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that ‘The objective
behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit
regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular
28 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are
irregular but not illegal, and to ensure security of
employment of those persons who had served the State
Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten
years”. In that case, employee was working for 29 years.
This decision approves earlier view expressed in
M.L.Kesari extracted above.
14. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in
(2014) 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken by the
Supreme Court and it was held as follows :
“41…. In view of the categorical finding of fact on the relevant
contentious issue that the respondent employees have
continued in their service for more than 10 years continuously
therefore, the legal principle laid down by this Court in Umadevi
case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 73) at para 53 squarely applies to the present cases. The
Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the
respondent employees are entitled for the relief, the same
cannot be interfered with by this Court.”
15. A bare perusal of the observations of the Apex Court
in various judgments referred to and extracted above
clearly indicate that the claim of the petitioners for
regularization has to be necessarily considered in view of
the fact that the concept of one time measure as
explained at paras 6 to 10 of the Judgment of the Apex
29 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
Court in State of Karnataka v M.L.Kesari which in clear
explicit terms said that one time exercise will be
concluded only when all the employees who are entitled
to be considered in terms of para 53 of Uma Devi are so
considered and the mandate and object in Uma Devi’s
case as explained in para 53 of the said judgment, to do
periodic regular recruitment of qualified personnel for
vacant posts and regularise the services of those engaged
for more than 10 years, as a one time measure and the
clarification of Uma Devi‘s case and the observation as
held at para ‘5’ of the decision of the Supreme Court in
State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L.Kesari and others
that Uma Devi casts a duty upon the concerned
Government and Instrumentality to take steps to
regularize the services of those irregularly appointed
employees who had served for more than ten years
without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of
Courts or Tribunals as a one-time measure has not been
diluted and the observations in para 54(2) of the
Judgement of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and
Others v. Jagjit Singh still hold good, which has clearly
30 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
said that a legally permissible scheme has to be framed in
respect of daily wagers, adhoc or contractual appointees
who are not appointed against sanctioned posts, but their
services are availed continuously with notional breaks by
the State Government or its instrumentality for a
sufficient long period i.e., for ten years.
16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, specifically placing relying on the averments
made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in
particular paragraph Nos.7 to 11, contended that under
similar circumstances, part-time contingent employees at
Mothkur Government Junior College, against the
sanctioned vacancies, approached this Court for
regularization of their services as per G.O.Ms.No.212. The
cases of the contingent employees at Mothkur
Government Junior College, namely N. Bikshapathy and
Md. Fareed were considered, and their services were
regularized. In fact, the Tribunal, in its order in
O.A.No.6988 of 1996 filed by N. Bikshapathy and Md.
Fareed, dated 14.09.1999, very clearly observed that the
applicants thereunder had put in more than five years of
31 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
service and were in continuous service in the organization
as on the cut-off date fixed in G.O.Ms.No.212.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the two ingredients
which are required for regularization of services had not
been satisfied and that the minimum service of five years
and also the said applicants working on the cut-off date
fixed in G.O.Ms.No.212 had been satisfied. Therefore, the
Tribunal allowed the O.A. in favour of the said applicants,
clearly observing that the applicants thereunder are
entitled to regularization of services and also periodical
increments. The said judgment in the case of the
applicants, N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed had been
confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
Judgment dated 19.07.2010 in W.P.No.16029 of 2000, and
the proceedings had been issued regularizing the services
of the said contingent employees. Therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to similar relief, and the impugned
order dated 08.06.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s case is
without application of mind, passed in a mechanical
manner, intended only to deny the relief as prayed for by
the petitioner herein.
32 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
17. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I,
appearing on behalf of the respondents, placing reliance on the
averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents, does not dispute that the relief had been extended
to other similarly situated persons like the petitioner working in
Mothkur Government Junior College, Nalgonda District. However,
contends that the said persons had approached the Tribunal,
whereas the petitioner did not approach the Tribunal, and did not
obtain any favourable orders from the Tribunal, as was obtained
by the said N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed.
18. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I,
appearing on behalf of the respondents, placing reliance on the
averments made in paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 of the counter-
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and
extracted above), contends that the Writ Petition needs to be
dismissed.
19. This Court opines that the impugned order dated
08.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 is contrary to
G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The impugned order dated
08.06.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and the counter
33 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
affidavit filed by the respondents refers to two specific reasons
denying the request of the petitioner for regularization and
absorption of the services of the petitioner in the post of
Waterman cum Gardener/Attender at respondent No.3 college by
extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 on
par with similarly situated persons who got regularized under
similar circumstances, which are enlisted below:
(a) the petitioner is a part-time employee,
(b) the case of the petitioner does not come under the
purview of G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning
(FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, since the
petitioner had not completed ten years of service as on
25.11.1993 for regularization of the petitioner’s services as
per G.O.Ms.No.112, G.A.D., dated 23.07.1997.
20. A bare perusal of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994,
clearly indicates that the cases of persons appointed on a Daily
Wage basis/NMRs or on Consolidated pay, and who continued in
service as on the date of commencement of the Act, such
persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five
years of service and are continuing in service as on 25.11.1993
34 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
be regularized by appointing authorities subject to fulfilment of
certain specific conditions.
21. This Court opines that the impugned proceedings dated
08.06.2022 are not only contrary to the view of the Apex Court
in the various Judgments referred to and extracted above, but
also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, which clearly
provides for the regularization and absorption of Daily
Wage/NMR or Consolidated pay employees.
22. It is pertinent to refer the Judgment of this Court
dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 which
pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda
District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and
also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated
09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.
23. Taking into consideration:
(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
35 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing
on behalf of the respondents,
(c) The averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondents and in particular paragraph
Nos.6, 7 and 8 (referred to and extracted above),
(d) The observations of the Apex Court reported in the
various judgments (referred to and extracted above), as
enlisted below:
(i) 2025 INSC 144
(ii) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209
(iii) (2017) 1 SCC 148
(iv) 2010(9) SCC 247
(v) (2013) 14 SCC 65
(vi) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797
(vii) (2015) 8 SCC 265
(viii) (2014) 7 SCC 223
(ix) Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 which had
been upheld by Division Bench of this Court in
WA No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also
confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated
09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.
(e) The bounden duty on the Judiciary to rectify
misclassifications and ensure that all workers receive fair
36 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
treatment without being discriminated duly taking into
consideration the indispensable services rendered by the
petitioner over three decades continuously since 1986,
(f) The fact, as borne on record, that the relief had been
extended to similarly situated persons like the petitioner,
who worked as contingent employees at Mothkur
Government Junior College, Nalgonda District. The orders
of this Court in W.P.(TR)No.5110 of 2017, dated
10.08.2018, W.P.No.16414 of 2019, dated 02.08.2019, the
order dated 14.09.1999 passed in O.A.No.6988 of 1996,
and the order dated 19.07.2010 passed in W.P.No.16029
of 2000,
This Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned
proceedings vide Rc.No.OP.1-1/1559453/2022, dated
08.06.2022 is set-aside. The respondents are directed to
reconsider the request of the petitioner for regularization
of the petitioner’s services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212,
Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated
22.04.1994, who is presently working as a part-time
Waterman cum Gardener, at Government Junior college,
37 SN,J
WP No.20382_2022
(Girls), Mahabubabad, with effect from the date of the
petitioner’s initial appointment i.e., 27.01.1986, within a
period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order, in accordance to law, duly considering the
observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments
(referred to and extracted above), in conformity of
principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate
orders, and duly communicate the decision to the
petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in
the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 01.04.2025
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
B/o Hfm/Yvkr