Telangana High Court
G. Uppalaiah vs State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2025
*THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
*THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
+WRIT APPEL No.416 of 2025
% 16-04-2025
#G. Uppalaiah ...Appellant
vs.
$The State of Telangana and others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Rama Subba Rao.
^Counsel for Respondents: Ms. M. Shalini, G.P for Services II
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. 2006 (4) SCC 1
2. (2018) 8 SCC 238
3. AIR 2025 SC 296
2
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.416 of 2025
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant/writ petitioner and Ms. M. Shalini, learned
Government Pleader for Services-II, for the respondents.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. This intra-court appeal takes exception to the order
dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.6552 of 2023 whereby, the writ petition was
dismissed.
4. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the
appellant's name was forwarded by the employment
exchange and he was appointed in the Department on
05.09.1986. Thereafter, the appellant worked continuously
with the Department. W.P.No.6552 of 2023 was filed by the
appellant seeking his regularization/absorption. The said
writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by
holding that the governing G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994
clearly mentions that absorption shall be against a clear
vacancy available at the time of appointment. Learned
Single Judge opined that in the instant case, the appellant
was not 'appointed against a sanctioned/vacant post' and he
was appointed on temporary basis. The appellant has
attained the age of 58 years as on the date of filing of the
writ petition. Apart from that, since the appellant is enjoying
the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 14.10.2019, he is not
entitled for any relief.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no
doubt the governing order is G.O.Ms.No.212 and it
prescribes six conditions which need to be fulfilled by an
employee who has worked for a minimum period of five years
and continuing as on 25.11.1993, the singular point on
which the appellant was non-suited is condition No.5 which
deals with the availability of clear vacancy on the date of
regularization/absorption and not on the date of his initial
appointment. Learned Single Judge has erroneously
interpreted condition No.5 of said G.O.Ms.No.212 and
rejected the writ petition. Merely because the appellant
approached the Court after several years, in a case of
regularization, it is not an impediment for him. More he
worked, more his right of consideration is ripened. The
singular reason for rejection of the writ petition is bad in
law. The grant of benefit under G.O.Ms.No.51 was also not
an impediment for the purpose of considering the appellant
for regularization/absorption. He placed reliance on
Annexue-P8 to submit that there existed a vacancy which is
evident by a certificate issued by Mandal Panchayat Officer
on 29.10.2019. This document has escaped notice of
learned Single Judge which shows that on the date of
absorption there existed a vacancy.
6. Sounding a contra note, learned Government Pleader
for Services-II, supported the impugned order and fairly
submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.212 is the governing G.O.
which prescribes the conditions upon fulfillment of which an
employee can get the right of consideration for
regularization/absorption. It is strenuously contended that
on the date the appellant was appointed, he was not
appointed against any clear and vacant post. Thus, learned
Single Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the
writ petition, more so, when the appellant is admittedly
getting the benefit of enhancement of remuneration as per
G.O.Ms.No.51 and approached the Court at the fag end of
his career.
7. Learned counsel for the parties confined their
arguments to the extent indicated above.
8. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival
contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
9. Before dealing with rival contentions of learned
counsel for the parties, it is apposite to note that learned
Government Pleader for Services-II has not disputed the fact
that the appellant was appointed in the year 1986 and his
name was sponsored by the employment exchange. The
relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.212 on which both the parties
placed heavy reliance reads thus:
"...Government accordingly decided that the
services of such person who worked
continuously for a minimum period of 5 years
and are continuing on 25.11.1993 be
regularized by the appointing authorities
subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:
1. The persons appointed should
possess the qualification prescribed as
per rules in force as on the date from
which his/her services have to be
regularized.
2. They should be within the age limits
as on the date of appointment as
NM/Daily wage employee.
3. The rule of reservation wherever
applicable will be followed and back-log
will be set-off against future vacancies.
4. Sponsoring of candidates from
Employment Exchange is relaxed.
5. Absorption shall be against clear
vacancies of posts considered necessary
to be continued as per work load
excluding the vacancies already notified
to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission/District Selection
Committee.
6. In the case of Work charged
Established, where there will be no
clear vacancies, because of the fact that
the expenditure on Work-charged is as
fixed percentage of P.S. Charges and as
soon as the work is over, the services of
workcharged establishment will have to
be terminated, they shall be adjusted in
the other departments. District Offices
provided there are clear vacancies of
Last Grade Service.
(Emphasis Supplied)
It is also not in dispute that as on 25.11.1993, the appellant
had already worked for more than five years. The only
condition on which the appellant's case was tested and
rejected was condition No.5 above. A careful reading of
condition No.5 shows that at the time of absorption, there
must exist a clear vacancy. In other words, condition No.5
does not stipulate that at the time of initial appointment,
there should be a clear and vacant post. Thus, learned
Single Judge, in our opinion, has not correctly interpreted
the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212 and considered it as if it
prescribes that a vacant post should be there at the time of
appointment against which employee had been appointed.
The appellant has worked with the Department from the year
1986. If the appellant's services were not actually required,
there was no occasion for the Department to continue him
for decades together. The appellant completed more than 34
years of service with the Department.
10. The Supreme Court, after considering its
Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi 1 in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v.
State of Jharkhand 2 opined as under:
7. ...The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued
with the irregular appointments for almost a decade
after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes
that it was all right to continue with irregular
appointments, and whenever required, terminate
the services of the irregularly appointed employees
on the ground that they were irregularly appointed.
This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the
employees by not giving them the benefits of
regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles
2006 (4) SCC 1
(2018) 8 SCC 238
over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of
Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 :
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Further, while considering the judgment of Umadevi
(supra) in Jaggo v. Union of India 3, the Supreme Court
opined as under:
"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma
Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees
who have rendered long years of service fulfilling
ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its
instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to
prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments
that circumvent constitutional requirements.
However, where appointments were not illegal but
possibly "irregular," and where employees had
served continuously against the backdrop of
sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the
need for a fair and humane resolution becomes
paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and
unblemished service performing tasks inherently
required on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary
into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a
recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union
of India5, it was held that held that procedural
formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of
service to an employee whose appointment was
termed "temporary" but has performed the same
duties as performed by the regular employee over a
considerable period in the capacity of the regular
employee...
21... Courts must look beyond the surface labels
and consider the realities of employment :
continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties,
AIR 2025 SC 296
and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their
appointments. In that light, refusing regularization
simply because their original terms did not
explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy
was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to
principles of fairness and equity.
22 to 25...
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought
to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and
ensure appointments adhered to constitutional
principles, it is regrettable that its principles are
often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny
legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This
judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and
"irregular" appointments. It categorically held that
employees in irregular appointments, who were
engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in
cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment
in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is
appropriate. This selective application distorts the
judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively
weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades."
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. In view of ratio of above judgments of the Supreme
Court, it is clear that the appellant cannot be denied benefit
of absorption/regularization on the basis of 'surface label' of
'temporary/casual employee'. The Supreme Court
deprecated this practice in the case of Jaggo (supra). The
appellant has rendered 34 years of service and he is not a
backdoor entrant. Even after the judgment of Umadevi
(supra), the respondents continued and extracted work from
the appellant. If the appellant is denied regularization after
rendering 34 years of service, it will be miscarriage of justice.
13. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), the
Supreme Court opined that such continuance of employees
for decades under the garb of 'irregular appointment'
amounts to 'exploitation'. Thus, we are inclined to grant the
relief to the appellant.
14. Apart from this, learned Single Judge has not
considered the document (Annexurer-P8) which is a
certificate and in column 12 of which it is mentioned that a
post is vacant and sanctioned. In the counter, the
respondents have not dealt with this certificate issued by the
Mandal Panchayat Officer. The petitioner was not a back
door entrant. His name was sponsored by employment
exchange.
15. We have also perused G.O.Ms.No.51 which deals
with enhancement of remuneration. This G.O.Ms. cannot be
an impediment for consideration of an employee for
regularization/absorption if he satisfies the conditions
mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212.
16. In the instant case, the appellant had completed five
years of service as on 25.11.1993. It is not the case of the
Department that the appellant does not possess the requisite
educational qualification. The appellant was not within the
age limit at the time of his appointment is also not the case
of the Department. The Department has not raised objection
about violation of Rule of reservation. The appellant's name
was admittedly sponsored by the employment exchange.
However, condition No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.212 relaxes such
requirement. Condition No.5 is satisfied by the appellant by
filing a document (Annexure-P8) which talks about
availability of the vacancy. Thus, examining the case of the
appellant on the anvil of governing G.O.Ms.No.212, in our
opinion, the appellant has fulfilled essential requirements of
the said G.O. for the purpose of absorption.
17. Accordingly, the order of learned Single Judge dated
19.02.2025 is set aside and the writ petition stands
allowed. The respondents are directed to consider and
regularize the services of the appellant within 60 days and
pass an appropriate order in this regard.
18. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 16.04.2025
Note:
L.R. Copy be marked.
B/o.Myk/Tsr
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Date: 16.04.2025
myk/tsr
