Telangana High Court
M. Anjaiah vs The Director on 15 November, 2022
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P. No. 26584 of 2019
Between:
M. Anjaiah and others
... Petitioners
And
The Director, Telugu Academy,
Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.11.2022
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_26584_2019
2 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 26584 of 2019
% 15.11.2022
Between:
# M. Anjaiah and others
... Petitioners
and
$ The Director, Telugu Academy,
Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Venkanna
^Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Dadi Radhakrishna
? Cases Referred:
1. (2013) 14 SCC 65
2. (2017) 1 SCC 148
3. 2006 (4) SCC 1
4. (1978) 4 SCC 257
WP_26584_2019
3 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 26584 of 2019
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate writ or
writs or order or orders more particularly in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the
services of the petitioners in consideration of their long
service more than 10 years as Hamalis divided into three
categories, namely, skilled, semi-skilled and un-skilled in the
light of the judgment and order of the Apex Court in the case
of State of Karnataka v Umadevi that was followed in
subsequent cases by this Court.
3) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioners have been employed in the respondent's
academy as Hamalis by designation and they are engaged to
discharge the duties as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled daily
wage workers against the persistent and perennial nature of
work of loading and unloading of Books published by the
WP_26584_2019
4 SN,J
academy. The respondent academy has its selling outlets in
each District Head Quarters and as well as important town
across the erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh.
b) The respondent academy was pleased to direct the
payment of wages to the disbursing authority for the months
of April, and May, 2014 the statement of wages duly passed
as bill on which the signatures of the petitioners in token of
having received their wages for the days they were engaged
on duty continuously. The respondent academy granted
payment of incentive for 15 days wages for the year 2014,
but the said incentives have been abruptly discontinued in the
subsequent years.
c) The petitioners made a representation to the District
Collector, Ranga Reddy District for implementation of
Minimum Wages for the year 2018 and 2019 and the District
Collector was pleased to issue proceedings dated 27.12.2018
whereby the minimum wages have been increased for un-
skilled workers from Rs.357/- to Rs.522/-,for semi-skilled
workers from Rs.443/- to Rs.648/-, for the skilled worker
from Rs.533/- to Rs.730/- per day.
WP_26584_2019
5 SN,J
d) When the respondent academy declined to implement
the said orders, the petitioner again made a representation on
26.03.2019, but in vain. Then the petitioners constrained to
organize a dharna on 17.06.2019 and made another
representation. The respondent academy implemented
enhanced rates w.e.f. 01.07.2019 instead of 01.07.2018. The
payment of wages for the period from 16.05.2019 to
31.05.2019 were released vide sanction dated 04.06.2019.
e) The petitioners have been uniformly designated as
Hamalis, but they are being utilised against a specific
category of work like librarian, proof reader, clerk, DTP
Operator, Computer operator, accountant, attenders,
scavenger, sweepers, godown watchman, despatch clerk,
drivers, sales clerk, printing clerk.
f) The respondent academy without considering the long
services of the petitioners for more than 10 years, issued
impugned tender notification inviting outsourcing agencies for
maintenance of cleanliness and book loading and unloading.
On appointment of the said agencies in pursuance of the
impugned tender notifications, the petitioners would be put to
WP_26584_2019
6 SN,J
irreparable loss and damage and at this age of more than 40
years of each employee cannot be engaged in the gainful
employment as they are used only to the known work to the
description of their respective duties in which they are being
engaged. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The respondent filed counter affidavit, in brief, is
as follows:
a) Present Director of the respondent academy filed
counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ
affidavit except those that are specifically admitted
thereunder. The 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.25745 of 2022 to
direct the respondent not to change his post as librarian to
that of clerk.
b) The present writ petition is not maintainable as there is
no employer and employee relationship between the
petitioner and the respondent and that there is no cause of
action to approach this Court and that the petitioners
misrepresented the facts for maintaining the writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
WP_26584_2019
7 SN,J
5. The additional counter affidavit filed by the
respondents, in brief, is as follows:
(a) The respondent academy filed a counter affidavit that
the respondent has ever right to engage an outsourcing
agency for the works to be done in the office and whereas the
outsourcing agency was already engaged in the year 2019
itself and the said contract of supply of man power on the
basis of work mode was already over i.e. upto 31.03.2022
and again another outsourcing agency was engaged from
01.04.2022 till 31.03.2022 and the facts maintaining the writ
petition is not tenable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
b) The respondent academy was recently bifurcated on
26.04.2022 and funds as well as employees were distributed
among Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Academies.
c) The petitioners are purely working on outsourcing basis.
Until and unless outsourcing agency submits the employees
particulars those who are engaged through the agency,
disbursement of payment towards their salaries does not
arise. Therefore, claiming payment of pay and allowances for
WP_26584_2019
8 SN,J
the period of April, 2022 to till date does not arise and prayed
to dismiss the writ petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD :
6. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue a writ or
writs or order or orders more particularly in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus directing the Respondent to regularize the
services of the Petitioners in consideration of their long
service more than 10 years as Hamalis divided into three
categories namely skilled semi-skilled and un-skilled in the
light of the judgment and order of the Apex Court in the case
of State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi that was followed in
subsequent cases by this Honble Court in the interest of
justice.
7. The counter affidavit paras 1 & 2 and paras 21, 22
and 23 which are relevant are as follows:
Para 1, 2 :
The present Writ Petition is not maintainable either under law
or on facts as these Petitioners have no locus standi to seek
the relief as claimed for the reason that there is no privity of
contract nor nexus with this respondent as they all are
working through an outsourcing agency. This respondent has
no administrative control or any authority over these
Petitioners. Admittedly these Petitioners have given consent
WP_26584_2019
9 SN,J
letter exercising their option to discharge their work through
an out-sourcing agency and accordingly, pursuant to their
consent given by them the Respondent utilizing their services
whenever needed through an out-sourcing agency. These
Petitioners are all working on this method for the last one
year, availing the benefits of ESI and PF. In such an event
there is no right for justification to seek their services to be
regularized. The Petitioners having accepted such mode of
method for extending their services, they are estopped for
making the claim made in the present Writ Petition. There
are no bonafide in their approach seeking relief against this
Respondent when admittedly they are no longer working with
this Respondent directly. So long as their consent letter in
Vogue they can't seek any relief as claimed and more so
presently all are working through the Out-sourcing agency as
such this relief is farfetched. The judgement reported in Uma
Devi case is not applicable to the facts of the case. The said
judgment is not applicable to the Out-sourcing workers.
Para 21 & 22 :
In response to the para, it is submitted that persons
engaged for the works which are of not in perennial nature
i.e., persons engaged only for loading and unloading of books
as and when they required, but, not in sanctioned posts.
They are not selected either through the process of open
competition scheme. No petitioner had put in 10 years of
continuous service as on 10.04.2006. Hence they are not
covered under Para 53 in the case of State of Karnataka vs.
Uma Devi.
Para 23 :
It is to submit that no petitioner as on this date is working
directly under the control of Telugu Akademi and they
themselves opted for EPF, ESI and working under third party
control from 01.12.2019 hence there is no infringement of
any rights much less the rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India.
8. The Petitioners filed I.A.No.3 of 2002 in
W.P.No.26584 of 2019 with a prayer directing the
Respondents to cause the payment of pay and
WP_26584_2019
10 SN,J
allowances for the period of April 2022 to till date and
to continue to pay regular pay and allowances in the
interest of justice.
9. Paras 4 & 5 of the Additional Counter Affidavit
filed by the Respondent in August 2022 reads as under:
Para 4 :
It is submitted that at the outset, the present
I.A.No.3/2022 filed in the Writ Petition is not maintainable as
there is no employer and employee relationship between the
petitioner and the respondent has every right to engage an
outsourcing agency for the works to be done in the office and
whereas the outsourcing agency was already engaged in the
year 2019 itself and the said contract of supply of man power
on the basis of work mode was already over i.e., upto
31.03.2002 till 31.03.2023 and the facts maintaining the Writ
Petition before this Hon'ble Court is not tenable and as such
the same is liable to be dismissed in limini.
Para 5 :
It is submitted that at the time of the Writ Petition, this
Respondent organization was not bifurcated and recently on
26.04.2022 it was bifurcated and funds as well as employees
were distributed among Telangana and Andhra Telugu
Academies.
Para 7 :
It is pertinent to note that this Hon'ble Court was
pleased to make an observation in their order dt.
31.01.2020, that "Learned Standing Counsel seeks
time to file counter and informs the court that the
Respondents are not taking any steps for terminating
the services of the Petitioner."
WP_26584_2019
11 SN,J
10. In I.A.No.2 of 2022, it is specifically averred at
Para 8 by the Petitioners as follows :
Para 8 :
It is not out of place to mention that the respondent
Academy was pleased to supply information to the petitioner
as to the total cadre Strength, Working Strength, the
availability of vacancies. As per the information available to
the there are 25 vacancies of Class IV, 45 vacancies in
Administrative Staff. The petitioners while working against
the vacant post of Class IV for last more than 10 years have
also discharging the duties of the administrative staff like the
accountants, librarian, data operators, typists,
Photocomposing operators, Printing Assistants etc.. This
being vacancy position for last so many years, the
respondents are not regularizing the services of the
petitioners even after filing the Interlocutory Application No.
1 of 2020 duly enclosing the Judgment and Order of this
Hon'ble High court dated 07-8-2020 in WP NO. 47675 of
2018, whereby in the similar circumstances, a direction was
given to the respondents therein to regularize the services
immediately and pay the salaries applicable to the regular
employees after deducting the already paid salary. Contrary
to the above said judgement staring directly at the fact of the
respondents, they are audacious to go for another
outsourcing agency to entrust the services through them to
whittle down the very purpose of this writ petition and also
the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court.
11. The counsel for the Petitioner as material documents
brings on record Office Order No.4/TA /Admn/A1/2006, dt.
03.01.2006 a bare perusal of the same indicates the Director,
Telugu Academy, Himayathnagar, considered the note
submitted for increase of daily wages to the employees who
are working on daily wages in the Academy as on 03.01.2006
and accordingly passed orders for payment of increased daily
WP_26584_2019
12 SN,J
wages to the employees. Representation of the petitioners dt.
26.03.2019 for release of increased wages to the daily wage
employees working in the Telugu Academy, the signatures of
the Petitioners and due acknowledgement by the Office of the
Respondent herein is also borne on record. Representation of
the Petitioner dt. 17.06.2019 addressed to the Respondent
herein in particular refers to the orders of the District
Collector, vide Proc.No.B/512/2013, dt. 27.12.2018 seeking
implementation of Labour Act Limits, ESI, EPF, etc. A bare
perusal of the other material documents on record indicates
the names of the Hamalis i.e., the Petitioners and their place
of work and also the period of work.
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION :
12. As per the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 the
distribution of Assets & Liabilities, the Staff working in
the Government and the Staff working in the
instrumentalities is on the basis of population ratio of
58.32 : 41.68. The Telugu Academy one of the State
instrumentality is enlisted in Schedule-X at Sl.No.51. As
per the mandate of AP Reorganization Act the
WP_26584_2019
13 SN,J
continuance of facilities in certain State institutions like
the one, the Telugu Academy, Hyderabad is mentioned
in Section 75 of the Act. The provisions thereof are
extracted as under :
"75. Continuance of facilities in certain State
Institutions :
(1) The Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh or
the State of Telangana, as the case may be, shall, in
respect of the institutions specified in the Tenth
Schedule to this Act, located in that State, continue to
provide facilities to the people of the other State which
shall not, in any respect, be less favourable to such
people than what were being provided to them before
the appointed day, for such period and upon such
terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between
the two State Governments within a period of one year
from the appointed day or, if no agreement is reached
within the said period, as may be fixed by order of the
Central Government.
(2) The Central Government may, at any time within
one year from the appointed day, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify in the Tenth Schedule referred
to in subsection (1) any other institution existing on
the appointed day in the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana and on the issue of such notification, such
Schedule shall be deemed to be amended by the
inclusion of the said institution therein".
13. In the counter affidavit filed in I.A. No.3/2022 it
is stated that the Respondent herein ie., the Telugu
Academy was bifurcated on 26.04.2022 and funds as
well as employees were distributed among Telangana
and Andhra Telugu Academies.
WP_26584_2019
14 SN,J
14. 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 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
WP_26584_2019
15 SN,J
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 consistent
with their obligation to function in accordance with the
Constitution.
11. 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 (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,
WP_26584_2019
16 SN,J
were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the
pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions
recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual
appointee against the regular sanctioned posts,
if appointed after undergoing a selection process
based upon fairness and equality of opportunity
to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled
to minimum of the regular pay scale from the
date of engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual
appointees are not appointed against regular
sanctioned posts and their services are availed
continuously, with notional breaks, by the State
Government or its instrumentalities for a
sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily
wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall
be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale
without any allowances on the assumption that
work of perennial nature is available and having
worked for such long period of time, an equitable
right is created in such category of persons.
Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to
be considered separately in terms of legally
permissible scheme.
(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum
pay scale after more than three years and two
months of completion of 10 years of continuous
working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual
employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period
of three years and two months."
12. In State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in
2006 (4) SCC 1 the Supreme Court has held as under:
Any public employment has to be in terms of the
constitutional scheme and a sovereign Government,
considering the economic situation in the country and the
work to be got done, is not precluded from making
WP_26584_2019
17 SN,J
temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily
wages.
It declared that a regular process of recruitment or
appointment has to be resorted to when regular vacancies in
posts at a particular point of time are to be filled up and
filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard
manner or based on patronage or other considerations. It is
also declared that regular appointments must be the rule.
It then went on to hold that it is ordinarily not proper
for the Courts whether acting under Article 226 of the
Constitution or under Article 32 of the Constitution, to direct
absorption in permanent employment of those who have
been engaged without following due process of selection as
envisaged by the constitutional scheme. It held that there is
only limited role of equity in such matters and otherwise it
would result in perpetuating illegalities and in the jettisoning
of the scheme of public employment adopted in the country.
It held that in situations where irregular appointments
(not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts are made, and all the employees
have continued to work for ten years or more, but without
the intervention of orders of Courts or of Tribunals, their
claim for regularization of services have to be considered on
merits.
It directed that the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps
for regularization, as a one-time measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed persons who have worked for ten
(10) years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover of orders of Courts or of Tribunals.
It also directed that Court should ensure that regular
appointments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned
posts.
It directed the said process to be set in motion within
six (06) months from the date of pronouncement of its order
in Uma Devi i.e., 10.04.2006.
WP_26584_2019
18 SN,J
13. The Supreme Court in a judgment in Hussain Bhai
v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union reported in (1978) 4
SCC 257 observed as follows :
In that case, the petitioner before the Supreme Court
was a factory owner manufacturing ropes. A number of
workmen were engaged to make ropes from within the
factory, but these workmen, according to the petitioner, were
hired by contractors who had executed agreements with the
petitioner to get such work done. Therefore, the petitioner
contended that the workmen were not his workmen but the
contractors' workmen.
The industrial award, made on a reference by the
State Government, was attacked on this ground.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in an
elaborate judgment, rightly held that the petitioner was the
employer and the members of the respondent-Union were
employees under the petitioner. A Division Bench upheld this
stand and the petitioner has sought special leave from this
Court.
While refusing leave and dismissing the SLP the Court
held that mere contracts are not decisive and the complex of
considerations relevant to the relationship is different; and
that where a worker or group of workers labours to produce
goods or services and these goods or services are for the
business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He
has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill,
and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off,
the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate
contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or
direct relationship ex contractu is of no consequence when,
on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors
governing employment, we discern, though draped in
different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer
is the Management, not the immediate contractor. The Court
explained :
"mere contracts are not decisive and the
complex of considerations relevant to the relationship
is different. Indian Justice, beyond Atlantic liberalism,
has a rule of law which runs to the aid of the Rule of
life. And life, in conditions of poverty aplenty, is
livelihood, and livelihood is work with wages. Raw
WP_26584_2019
19 SN,J
societal realities, not fine-spun legal niceties, not
competitive market economics but complex protective
principles, shape the law when the weaker, working
class sector needs succour for livelihood through
labour. The conceptual confusion between the classical
law of contracts and the special branch of' law
sensitive to exploitative situations accounts for the
submission that the High Court is in error in its holding
against the petitioner.
The true test may with brevity, be indicated once
again. Where a worker or group qf workers labours to
produce goods or services and these goods or services are
for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the
employer. He has economic control over the workers'
subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any
reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The
presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the
workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contractu is
of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the
conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the
naked truth, though in different perfect paper arrangement,
that the real employer is the Management. not the
immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold
after fold of legal form depending on the degree of
concealment needed, the type of industry, the local condition
and the like may be restored to when labour legislation casts
welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Articles
38, 39, 42, 43 and 43-A of the Constitution. The court must
be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of
the law and not be misled by the mischief of legal
appearances.
If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends
on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the
benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of
direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries
or the make-believe trappings of detachment from the
Management cannot snap the real life-bond. The story may
vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot
be shaken off."
14. In a similar identical factual situation workers employed
through out sourcing by GHMC approached this Court by filing
WP_26584_2019
20 SN,J
WP No.47675/2018. In G.Srinivasa Chary, Petitioner v.
State of Telangana in IA No.1/2019 in WP No.47675/2018
vide its order dated 07.08.2020 was pleased to observe as
follows :
" In the result,
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed;
(b) the respondents' action in engaging the petitioners
on "outsourcing basis" as Sanitary Supervisors (SFA),
Sanitation Workers, Entomology Field Workers, Entomology
Superior Field Workers, Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field
Assistants through intermediaries/agencies/contractors is
contrary to law, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and also the law declared by the
Supreme Court in Uma Devi (1 supra) mandating periodic
regular recruitment to sanctioned posts;
(c) that the "outsourcing" system adopted by the
GHMC is only a sham and a ruse to avoid extending to the
petitioners their genuine service entitlements; and that the
presence of such intermediary/contractor has to be ignored,
and the petitioners are held to have been directly engaged by
the GHMC and they are also held entitled to be considered
for regularisation of their services;
(d) consequently, the respondents, while continuously
engaging the services of the petitioners directly henceforth,
are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for
regularisation of their services, by ignoring the existence of
the intermediaries/ agencies/contractors in the posts of
Sanitary Supervisor (SFA), Sanitation Workers, Entomology
Field Workers, Entomology Superior Field Workers,
Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field Assistants within two (2)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
(e) the petitioners are entitled to minimum of time
scale of pay attached to the posts of Sanitary Supervisor
(SFA), Sanitation Workers, Entomology Field Workers,
Entomology Superior Field Workers, Supervisors (EFA),
Superior Field Assistants in which they are now discharging
their functions till their claim for regularisation is considered
by the GHMC in accordance with para 53 of the decision in
Uma Devi (1 supra); and such payments shall be made by
WP_26584_2019
21 SN,J
the GHMC directly to the petitioners w.e.f the date of filing of
this Writ petition ( after deducting the payments already
received by them during this period from the
contractor/intermediary) and shall be continued till the cases
of the petitioners are considered for regularisation by the
GHMC. The arrears upto 31.7.2020 shall be paid on or before
15.9.2020.
(c) I.A.No.1 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.
15. This Court opines that where a worker is engaged
through a contractor or through agencies, they, after
deducting their commission, pay the wages to the
workers and probably with a fond hope that their
services would be regularized subsequently, they work
as contract workers or through agencies. This is
nothing but exploiting the helplessness of those
workers and thereby denying them the minimum
wages. It certainly violates the right to life guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Constitution of India to those
workers/ employees like the petitioners.
16. The creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for
a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of
the State and the Respondent herein i.e. Telugu
Academy but if they did not choose to create a cadre or
fill up the available vacancies in accordance with the
WP_26584_2019
22 SN,J
applicable procedure /Rules, but chose to make
appointments of persons creating contractual
relationship, their action would be arbitrary.
17. Thus the respondent authority cannot avoid
recruitment to the posts in question, engage persons
like the petitioners through intermediaries/ contractors
through the system of "outsourcing", pay them paltry
wages, and deny them regularisation of services saying
the decision in Uma Devi entitles them to deny relief of
regularisation. Engagement of the persons like the
petitioners through outsourcing agencies/
intermediaries violates the law laid down in Uma Devi's
case.
18. This Court opines that the engagement of the
persons like the petitioners through outsourcing
agencies/ intermediaries for more than 15 years after
the decision in Uma Devi, without undertaking any
exercise to identify regularly the vacancies in the above
posts in the Respondent Academy i.e., Telugu Academy,
Himayathnagar, and fill them up as per the applicable
rules by properly qualified personnel, and engaging
WP_26584_2019
23 SN,J
persons of "outsourcing" basis through
intermediaries/contractors, is in violation of the law
laid down in Uma Devi's case by the respondents and it
also violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
19. The mandate in Uma Devi 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, 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.
20. This Court is of firm opinion that the respondents
cannot contend that the petitioners are not entitled to
be considered for regularisation of their services in the
said posts on the ground that they were not regularly
recruited through a process of selection as per the
applicable service rules in view of para 53 of the
decision in Uma Devi which permits one time exercise
of regularisation to be done for persons employed on
WP_26584_2019
24 SN,J
temporary basis/daily wages etc. who have rendered
continuous service for more than ten (10) years.
21. Taking into consideration the contention of the
Respondent that the Respondent organization has been
bifurcated on 26.04.2022, the Respondents while
continuously engaging the services of the petitioners
directly henceforth, are directed to consider the case of
the petitioners for regularisation of their services in the
posts whose work they are discharging now, by
ignoring the existence of the intermediaries/
agencies/contractors in the said posts of Hamalis
divided into 3 categories namely skilled, semi-skilled
and un-skilled in the light of the judgments of the Apex
Court referred to and discussed above and which were
followed in subsequent cases by this Court within two
(2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law
and communicate the decision to the Petitioners.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
WP_26584_2019
25 SN,J
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 15.11.2022
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o
kvrm
