Telangana High Court
Manipati Lingam vs The State Of Telangana, on 6 December, 2022
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P. No. 27602 of 2019
Between:
Manipati Lingam and others
... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Principal Secretary and others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 06.12.2022
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
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
____________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
WP_27602_2019
2 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 27602 of 2019
% 06.12.2022
Between:
# Manipati Lingam and others
... Petitioners
and
$ The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Principal Secretary and others.
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A.Ravinder
^Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Endowments
? Cases Referred:
1. (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148
2. 2010 )9)SCC 247
3. (2013 14 SCC 65
4. 2015 SCC one lie SC 1797
5.(2015) 9 SCC 265
6. 2006 (4) SCC 1
7. 2015 (8) 65
8. 2014(7) SCC 223
WP_27602_2019
3 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 27602 of 2019
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue an order or direction
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to
declare the impugned notice in Rc.No.C1/1933/2009, dated
06.08.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent wherein rejecting
the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services
though the same was considered in cases of similarly situated
persons as illegal, and liable to be set aside and consequently,
direct the respondents to regularise the services of the
petitioners by duly following law laid down by the Apex Court
in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v
Umadevi and others on 10.04.2006 and the law laid
down by the High Court in U.V.S.R. Prasad and others v
State of Andhra Pradesh and another in W.P.No.27217
of 2017 reported in 2018(2) ALD 282 (DB) with all
consequential benefits.
WP_27602_2019
4 SN,J
PERUSED THE RECORD
3. The contents in Rc.No.C1/1993/2009, dated
06.08.2019 read as under:
I submit that in this regard as per the above the
workers of Devastanam Temple Civil Department workers
M.Lingam B.Sailu, B. Ramesh, K. Mallesh, S. Srisailam,
they requested the authority regularize their service as a
NMR along with others they approached Hon'ble High
Court order as per reference 1 is cited. The Hon'ble High
Court directed the authorities regularized their service (5
Labours) completed 25 years of service as per
G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 12.05.2017 who were considered 35
members of NMR's. As per the Hon'ble High Court order
they submitted representation to the Commissioner
consider them as a regular employees.
Above reference 4th is cited as per G.O.Ms.No.212
23.04.1994 they are not considered under the send G.O's
the Commissioner submitted report stating that as per
rules they are not eligible the Commissioner informed the
petitioners also. As per reference 5th is cited the
Commissioner direct the Executive Officer. As per
reference 6th is cited the requested the authorities to
enhance our labour charges as per their request this
office is enhanced their labour charge 100/-Rs.
As per the Hon'ble Commissioner as per your request
to the office your appointed before 1993 and requested
regularise NMR's along with others. In this regard you are
not a NMR and also you are not daily wage workers. Your
working since from 08.04.1992 whenever your work
required we are utilizing your work. Though you are not
under the cover of as per GO.Ms.No. 212 dated
22.04.1994 and you are not completed 5 years of service
as on the cut of date 22.04.1994.
In this temple your working Civil Department
temporarily for minor works whenever work is required
we utilize your work and paid the amount as per the work
of that basis your working in this temple though you are
not eligible for regular NMR's as per rules.
WP_27602_2019
5 SN,J
4. Office order dated 06.01.1996 reads as under:
It is observed that the musters of NMR's are not
being prepared in time and the individuals who have
been stringing for the entire masons facing much
difficulty due to non payment of musters in time as
represented by some of them. It is therefore
ordered that the amounts covered by the musters
should be paid to all the temporary workers whether
NMR's or DLR's who have been working before the
date of Ordinance i.e., 25.11.1993 by monthly bills
here after only through cheques that too by opening
individual accounts in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and
remitting the amounts to the respective accounts by
supplying list of such employees to the Manager, along
with cheque. This will also help the employees to
minimize his expenditure and in the welfare of staff.
All such workers are also directed to open account in
N.G.B. forthwith.
5. The order in W.P.No.25842 of 2007 reads as
under:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in
not regularizing the services of petitioners on
completion of five years of service as illegal and
arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to
regularize the services of petitioners from the date on
which they have completed five years of service with
all consequential and attendant benefits including
arrears of pay.
Mr.A.Ravinder learned counsel for petitioners,
learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the
learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent.
It has been contended by petitioners that they
were appointed as daily wage workers in the 2nd
respondent Devasthanam on 08.04.1992 and ever
since, they are continuously discharging their duties.
It is further contended that services of similarly
placed persons, who were appointed prior to
25.11.1993, were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.76 dated
WP_27602_2019
6 SN,J
12.05.2017. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has furnished a copy of G.O.Ms.No.76 dated
12.05.2017 and contends that the petitioners are also
identically placed to the persons, in whose favour
regularisation orders were passed vide G.O.Ms.No.76,
dated 12.05.2017.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd
respondent contended that the persons, who were
regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 12.05.2017 are
the persons, who were appointed prior to 25.11.1993
and they have put in 24 years of service and the
Government has taken a decision as a special case to
absorb and regularize the services of 35 2 NMRs
appointed prior to 25.11.1993 and contends that the
petitioners were appointed as daily wage workers but
not as NMRs and that is the reason, the respondents
have not considered the case of petitioners for
regularization.
This Court, having considered the rival
submissions, is of the considered view that in the
instant case, the petitioners were appointed prior to
25.11.1993 i.e., on 08.04.1982 and they have put in
more than 25 years of service and they are also
entitled for similar treatment as was extended in
favour of 35 NMRs in whose favour G.O.Ms.No.76,
dated 12.05.2017 was issued.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondents to consider the case of
petitioners as was done in the case of persons, in
whose favour G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 12.05.2017 was
issued, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
6. Para 13 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the
Respondents reads as under :
Para 13 : In reply to the averments raised in the paras
9 to 11 of the writ affidavit, I humbly submit that the
cased cited by the petitioners have no application to
the situation of the petitioners as they stand on
different footing i.e., they are neither NMRs nor Daily
Wage Workers and that their services are taken when
the contingency arises. I submit for sake of argument
even if it is presumed that the petitioners have made
WP_27602_2019
7 SN,J
out their case, they cannot be considered in view of
the twin stipulations as laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212,
dt. 22.04.1994 wherein it was stipulated that only the
persons who had completed 5 years working against
any sanctioned post. I submit that the petitioners fail
on both the grounds. I submit that the employees who
fulfil the criteria can be only be considered. I submit
that they are neither employees nor NMRs or Daily
Wage Labourers as such the rules cannot be applied in
their case.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
7. A bare perusal of the order impugned dated
06.08.2019 clearly indicates the fact that the
petitioners are working since 08.04.1992 for the 3rd
respondent temple, even as per the impugned notice of
the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.C1/1993/2009, dated
06.08.2019, but it is however, stated by the 3rd
respondent that the services of the petitioners are
utilised whenever required by the 3rd respondent and
further the petitioners did not complete five years of
service as on the cut of date i.e. 22.04.1994, therefore,
the petitioners are not entitled for regularisation as per
rules.
8. A bare perusal of the contents of the office order
dated 06.01.1996 clearly indicates that the 2nd
respondent through office order dated06.01.1996
WP_27602_2019
8 SN,J
directed the petitioner herein and also other similar
workers to open accounts in the Nagarjuna Grameena
Bank so as to ensure that the salary of the employees
are credited into the said account and further directed
to maintain the muster rolls of NMRs.
9. Vide orders dated 04.12.2007 passed in
W.P.M.P.No.33673 of 2007 in W.P.No.25842 of 2007
the petitioners in the present writ petition had been
continued in service and the said writ petition was
finally disposed of on 10.09.2018 with a clear
observation as follows:
"This Court having considered the rival submissions is
of the considered view that in the instant case, the
petitioners were appointed prior to 25.11.1993 i.e. on
08.04.1992 and they have put in more than 25 years of
service and they are also entitled for similar treatment
as was extended in favour of 35 NMRs in whose favour
G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 12.05.2017 was issued. "
10. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter dated
31.10.2011 of the 3rd respondent herein addressed to
the 2nd respondent clearly indicates that the 3rd
respondent is misguided and had erroneously observed
in the said letter that as on the cut off date i.e.
23.04.1994 the petitioners did not have the required
WP_27602_2019
9 SN,J
five years service as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated
23.04.1994, therefore, the petitioners cannot have the
benefit of the said G.O.
11. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter
Rc.A1/4710/2007, dated 31.12.2014 of the 3rd
respondent herein clearly indicates that the 3rd
respondent herein called for a report from the civil
department way back on 31.12.2014 itself.
12. Admittedly as borne on record and observed by
the High Court in its order dated 10.09.2018 in
W.P.No.25842 of 2007, the petitioners were appointed
by the 3rd respondent temple prior to 25.11.1993 i.e. on
08.04.1992 and they have put in more than 25 years of
service as on 10.09.2018 and the petitioners have
rendered almost 29 years of service as on date i.e.
December, 2022, to the 3rd respondent temple. Having
continued in service regularly, continuously by virtue of
the interim orders of the High Court dated 04.12.2007
passed in W.P.M.P.No.33673 of 2007 in W.P.No.25842
of 2007, this Court opines that the petitioners herein
WP_27602_2019
10 SN,J
are also entitled for the similar treatment as was
extended in favour of 35 NMRs in whose favour
G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 12.05.2017 was issued by the
Respondents herein and their services had been
regularized.
13. It is in fact, specifically averred by the petitioners
herein at para 4 of their affidavit that in pursuance to
the office order of the 2nd respondent dated
06.01.1996, the petitioners also opened their accounts
and salaries of the petitioners are being credited into
the said account regularly by the 3rd respondent herein
and the petitioners had been continuously rendering
their services to the 3rd respondent temple since
08.04.1992 till as on date. A bare perusal of the
statement giving the particulars of the bank account
number as per the records of the 3rd respondent clearly
indicates that the petitioners are rendering their
services in the civil engineering department of the 3rd
respondent temple and the same is extracted
hereunder:
WP_27602_2019
11 SN,J
Below are the particulars of the employees working in
Civil Engineer department of the Temple:
S.No. Name Occup Time Caste Aadhar Date Account No. Bank IFC
-ation of of CODE
work Birth
No.
01. M.Lingam Mestri 2061587151 CBI CBIN
(Court Case)
DOWN
HILL 0280845
02. B.Sailu Para 3579989945 CBI CBIN
gadu
(Court case) 0283968
03. B.Ramesh Mestri 3579596115 CBI CBIN
0283968
04. K.Mallesh Mestri 3580782607 CBI CBIN
0283968
(Court Case
05. s.Srisailam Mestri 3581746953 CBI CBIN
0283968
(Court Case)
14. In response to the plea of the Respondents during
the course of arguments that the petitioners are
presently not in service, learned counsel for the
petitioners filed certain bank statements of the
Petitioners on 08.09.2022 which pertains to the year
2022. On perusal of the same, this Court is of the
opinion and it is very clear that the Respondents are
trying to misrepresent to the Court.
A) 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
WP_27602_2019
12 SN,J
sub-paras (1)(2)(3), of the said judgment observed as
under:
"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while
adjudicating upon the above controversy had
concluded, that temporary employees were not
entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale,
merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by
daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The
full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary
employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions,
were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the
pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions
recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual
appointee against the regular sanctioned posts,
if appointed after undergoing a selection process
based upon fairness and equality of opportunity
to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled
to minimum of the regular pay scale from the
date of engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual
appointees are not appointed against regular
sanctioned posts and their services are availed
continuously, with notional breaks, by the State
Government or its instrumentalities for a
sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily
wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall
be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale
without any allowances on the assumption that
work of perennial nature is available and having
worked for such long period of time, an equitable
right is created in such category of persons.
Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to
be considered separately in terms of legally
permissible scheme.
(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum
pay scale after more than three years and two
months of completion of 10 years of continuous
working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual
WP_27602_2019
13 SN,J
employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period
of three years and two months."
B) The judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2010(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and
others v M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, paras 4 to
9 reads as under:
4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was
rendered on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1).
In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held
that appointments made without following the due
process or the rules relating to appointment did not
confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot
direct their absorption, regularization or re-
engagement nor make their service permanent, and
the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue
directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent
continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a
regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme;
and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that
they do not interfere unduly with the economic
arrangement of its affairs by the State or its
instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be
instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court
further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a
daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be
made permanent unless he had been appointed in
terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles
WP_27602_2019
14 SN,J
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
WP_27602_2019
15 SN,J
must be set in motion within six months from
this date. ....
"5. It is evident from the above that there is an
exception to the general principles against
`regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the
following conditions are fulfilled :
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10
years or more in duly sanctioned post without the
benefit or protection of the interim order of any court
or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or
its instrumentality should have employed the
employee and continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be
illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are
not made or continued against sanctioned posts or
where the persons appointed do not possess the
prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments
will be considered to be illegal. But where the person
employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and
was working against sanctioned posts, but had been
selected without undergoing the process of open
competitive selection, such appointments are
considered to be irregular.
(iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned
Government or instrumentality, to take steps to
regularize the services of those irregularly appointed
employees who had served for more than ten years
without the benefit or protection of any interim orders
of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure.
Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must
WP_27602_2019
16 SN,J
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
WP_27602_2019
17 SN,J
should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those
employees who had put in 10 years of continuous
service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection
of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any
employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of
para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of
some employees who were entitled to the benefit of
para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should
consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-
time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded
only when all the employees who are entitled to be
considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so
considered.
8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of
Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who
have put in more than ten years of continuous service
without the protection of any interim orders of courts
or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi
was rendered, are considered for regularization in
view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the
departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the
practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-
hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically
regularize them on the ground that they have served
for 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
WP_27602_2019
18 SN,J
of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing
the requisite qualification, are entitled to be
considered for regularization. The fact that the
employer has not undertaken such exercise of
regularization within six months of the decision in
Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in
regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such
employees, the right to be considered for
regularization in terms of the above directions in
Umadevi as a one-time measure.
9. These appeals have been pending for more than four
years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant
(Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases
of respondents of regularization within six months of
the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.
10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed
that the cases of respondents should be considered in
accordance with law. The only further direction that
needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila
Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise
within six months, a general one- time regularization
exercise, to find out whether there are any daily
wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila
Panchayat and if so whether such employees
(including the respondents) fulfill the requirements
mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them,
their services have to be regularized. If such an
exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or
omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of
the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall
WP_27602_2019
19 SN,J
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.
C) 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 relationship, its
action is arbitrary. It also refused to accept the defence
WP_27602_2019
20 SN,J
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 practice inconsistent
WP_27602_2019
21 SN,J
with their obligation to function in accordance with the
Constitution.
D) 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
WP_27602_2019
22 SN,J
in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L.
Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.
E) In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported (2015)
8 SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that 'The objective
behind the exception carved out in this case was to
permit regularisation of such appointment, which are
irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments,
which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure
security of employment of those persons who had
served the State Government and their
instrumentalities for more than ten years". In that
case, employee was working for 29 years. This
decision approves earlier view expressed in M.L.Kesari
extracted above.
F) 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
WP_27602_2019
23 SN,J
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 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
WP_27602_2019
24 SN,J
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 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. This Court is of the firm opinion that the plea of
the 3rd respondent temple that the petitioners did not
satisfy the requirement of completing five years of
service as on 25.11.1993 and further that the
Petitioners are not working against any sanctioned
WP_27602_2019
25 SN,J
posts and hence, they are not entitled to be considered
for regularisation as indicated in the letter of the 3rd
respondent dated 31.10.2011 and as indicated in the
order impugned of the 3rd respondent dated 06.08.2019
and also in their counter affidavit filed before the High
Court in the present writ petition at para 13 of the
counter cannot be sustained, as per the observations of
the various Apex Court judgments referred to and
extracted above, in view of the simple fact that the
petitioners are rendering their services to the 3rd
respondent temple continuously from 1992 till as on
date i.e. for the last nearly 29 years. The 3rd respondent
temple cannot deny the relief of regularization to the
petitioners as per para 53 of the decision in Umadevi's
case, which permits one time exercise of regularization
to be done for personal employed on temporary
basis/daily wages etc, who have rendered continuous
service for more than 10 years. The 3rd respondent
temple cannot take the services of the petitioners for
years together without regularising their services and
indulge in such a practice inconsistent with their
WP_27602_2019
26 SN,J
obligation to function in accordance with the
constitution as observed by the Apex Court in Nihal
Singh and others v State of Punjab which clearly held
that "sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven" and the
State has to create them by a conscious choice on the
basis of some rational assessment of the need.
17 Taking into consideration, the above referred facts
and circumstances and in the light of the observations
of the Apex Court in various judgments referred to and
discussed above, the writ petition is allowed duly
setting aside the order impugned in
Rc.No.C1/1993/2009, dated 06.08.2019 issued by the
2nd respondent and the respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of
the services of the petitioners duly taking into
consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in
various judgments referred to and extracted above,
since the petitioners herein are also entitled for similar
treatment as was extended by the respondents herein
in favour of 35 NMRs of the 3rd respondent temple
whose services had been regularized and in whose
WP_27602_2019
27 SN,J
favour G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 12.05.2017 was issued by
the respondents herein and pass appropriate orders, in
accordance to law, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of copy of the order and
communicate the decision to the petitioners. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
__________________________
MRS.JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
06.12.2022
Note : L.R. copy to be marked.
b/o
kvrm
