"Applications allowed. The order dated 5th May, 2000 is
recalled. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we,
direct that the respondents shall be continued in the
service and the question of their regularization will be
decided in accordance with the rules. The Special Leave
Petition is disposed of."
filed by APSRTC in Review Petition (Civil) No. 856 of 2001 in I.A.No.
revived. Despite such an order, petitioners were not continued.
petitioners are continuing as such till to date. Thereafter, the
direction to absorb them in the Corporation as regular employees.
09.02.2011. The Operative portion is extracted as under:
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above
directions."
the same was dismissed by an order dated 15.03.2012. The
3(viii) The petitioners filed C.C.No. 954 of 2012 Under Sections
W.A.No.215 of 2011 dated 15.03.2012. Thereafter, the respondent
2. A constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Secretary, State of
Karnatka v Uma Devi, Reported in 2006 (SCALE)/(4)/197
held that without following due procedure/Rules relating
to appointment do not confer any right on the appointees
and the Courts cannot direct the absorption, regularization
or re-engagement nor make the services permanent and
the Petitioners cannot claim regularization unless the
recruitment had been done irregular manner in terms of
constitutional schemes.
3. As per APSRTC Employees (Rect) Regulations, the requisite
qualification for the post of Shramic is ITI Diesel mechanic.
The vacancies are being filled by issuing notification. In
this case, the Petitioners are not having the requisite
qualification. The Petitioners were not engaged by the
APSRTC by issuing notification.
Sri Kishan 11 others were neither recruited against the
sanction vacancies in the corporation nor they possess the
requisite qualifications. Therefore in the light of the above
facts and legal position, I consider that Sri Kishan and 11
others are not eligible for regularization of their services.
3(ix) In pursuance of the Orders of the High Court in
W.P.No.27349 of 2003, as confirmed in Writ Appeal No.215 of 2011,
the respondents herein have passed a Speaking Order
No.P3/122(2)/2009-WM-KR, dated 19.04.2012 rejecting the case of
the petitioners for regularization. However, the Petitioners have
already filed C.C.No.954 of 2012 on the file of this Court, and the
said C.C. was closed on 30.07.2021, giving liberty to the Petitioners
to challenge the rejection Order dated 19.04.2012. As such, the
present Petition is filed.
4. Respondents filed counter stating that vide item No.4(b) of
G.O.Ms.No.16/2016 it is clearly stated that:
"after section 10, the following new section shall be added
namely:- "Regulation of Services of persons appointed on contract
basis, 10-A, Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the
Government may regularize the services of the persons appointed
on contract basis against the sanctioned posts in the
Government, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:
1. Availability of post in the relevant category in the respective
departments shall be the pre-requisite condition for
considering regularization.
2. Regularization may be considered only in respect of persons
appointed on full time contract basis on a monthly
remuneration."
In the case of the petitioners, they were not appointed on a
contract basis against the sanctioned posts, and hence, the
G.O.Ms.No.16/2016 is not applicable in this case. They also
submitted that the Corporation had made zero norms for the posts
of Attender, Mali, Sweeper, etc., w.e.f. 15.03.2004 and these posts
do not exist in the Corporation at present and as such stating the
qualification for the post of Sweeper does not arise.
4(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not given any
directions to the Corporation for regularization of the petitioner's
services on the grounds as claimed. The contention of the
recruitment method for the posts of
Scavenger/Sweeper/Maali/Malan posts is through direct
recruitment, which was correct in the past, i.e., before 15.03.2004.
After the norms were zero for these posts, the Corporation did not
recruit anyone for these posts. The contention of experience gained
during the 20 years long service could not be denied on the grounds
of the non-possession of qualification which is incorrect. The
petitioners have worked as Sweepers, and the experience gained
with this work could not be matched with the qualification of ITI
Diesel Mechanic, which is the minimum requirement for selection to
the post of Shramik/Khalasi.
4(ii) The period of sweeping work done by the petitioners on a
contract basis for about 20 years, is not worth consideration for
regularization since the post of Sweeper does not exist in the
Corporation at present. When the post of Sweeper is abolished in
the Corporation, the question of the availability of the sanctioned
vacancies does not arise. The contention of the petitioners that the
work done by the petitioners and their responsibilities are identical
to regular employees, is incorrect. The petitioners are in no way
held responsible for their mistakes; their contractor was held
accountable. They work under the contractor control per the terms
and conditions of the Agreement entered into by the contractor. The
service conditions prescribed to the Corporation for the regular
employees do not apply to the petitioners. Hence, the question of
regularizing the petitioners on par with the regular employees does
not arise.
4(iii) By an office Order No.OS4/255(36)2007-PO.III, dated
02.07.2009, instructions were issued for regularizing all casual
employees recruited up to 2001 and on rolls as of 01-07-2009.
However, the petitioners are not recruited by the Corporation.
Hence, they will not come under this purview. The qualification for
the post of Sweeper as per the Recruitment Regulations is, to write
simple sentences in Telugu/Hindi or Urdu. The contention of the
petitioners that they have not been regularized for the reason that
they do not have ITI qualification is incorrect. There does not exist
the Sweeper post in the Corporation at present. The persons
recruited regularly for the posts of Attender, Sweeper, Mali etc., have
been re-categorized to work Shramik/Khalasi after abolishing these
posts by the Corporation.
4(iv) The orders passed by the High Court to consider the
petitioners as regular employees, were struck out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and the petitioners have been continued as
contract labour in the Corporation to date. The work period of about
20 years as contract labour in the Corporation does not confer them
any right for regularization of their services. There are no merits in
the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
where the regular or irregular appointments take place, a
temporary basis against sanctioned posts cannot be continued as a
temporary basis for a one time measure; they have to be
regularized, and he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi 1. But, in
the present case, petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned
posts; their appointments are purely on a contract basis, and
Contractor appointed thus. After disposing of the review petition
by filed by the APSRTC before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
18.01.2002, the petitioners filed W.P.No.27349 of 2003 before this
Court seeking for a direction to absorb them in the Corporation as
regular employees. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an
order dated 09.02.2011. The Operative portion is extracted as
under:
"I am afraid I may not be able to agree with the submission made
by the learned counsel for the respondents. The purport of the
order of the Supreme Court is that they are not automatically
entitled for regularization but, it does not mean that they are not
entitled for regularization even if vacancies are available and
they are continued for reasonably long period. All the above
orders would indicate that the petitioners are not automatically
entitled for regularization as per the orders of this Court in W.P.
No.13308 of 1997, which was confirmed in the writ appeal, but
that does not mean that the petitioners are not entitled for
regularization thereafter as per the service rules of APSRTC in
view of the service put in by them after reinstatement on
04.02.2003. By now Petitioners would have put in more than
eight years of service and admittedly they have been working as
employees of the APSRTC though at one point of time it was
(2006) 4 SCC 1
claimed that they were contract employees, which was not
accepted in the earlier round of litigation which went up to
Supreme Court.
Therefore, respondents are bound to consider regularization of
services of the Petitioners in the respondent-Corporation. Now it
is more than 18 years that they have been since working in their
respective posts. Therefore, respondents are directed to consider
the cases of the Petitioners for regularization of their services in
the APSRTC as per the service conditions governing them. This
exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Order"
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above
directions."
The purpose of the above order is to clarify that respondents
are bound to consider the regularization of services of the petitioners
in the respondent-Corporation. Thereafter, the respondent
Corporation has considered the cases of the petitioners and rejected
their representation for regularization vide order dated. 19.04.2012
on the following grounds:
"!. Section 7 & 7-A of the Act 2 of 1994 (A.P. Regulation and
Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of
staff pattern and pay structure Act 1994) Prohibits
regularization of daily wage employees as matter of right.
2. A constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Secretary, State of
Karnatka v Uma Devi, Reported in 2006 (SCALE)/(4)/197
held that without following due procedure/Rules relating
to appointment do not confer any right on the appointees
and the Courts cannot direct the absorption, regularization
or re-engagement nor make the services permanent and
the Petitioners cannot claim regularization unless the
recruitment had been done irregular manner in terms of
constitutional schemes.
3. As per APSRTC Employees (Rect) Regulations, the requisite
qualification for the post of Shramic is ITI Diesel mechanic.
The vacancies are being filled by issuing notification. In
this case, the Petitioners are not having the requisite
qualification. The Petitioners were not engaged by the
APSRTC by issuing notification.
Sri Kishan 11 others were neither recruited against the
sanction vacancies in the corporation nor they possess the
requisite qualifications. Therefore in the light of the above
facts and legal position, I consider that Sri Kishan and 11
others are not eligible for regularization of their services.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners
despite being labelled as contract workers, performed the essential
tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods,
ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades, as such, their
services have to be regularized, and he relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India 2 wherein it
was held as under:
"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
LAWS (SC) -2024-12-80, decided on 20.12.2024
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 labeled 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.
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.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the period of sweeping work done by the petitioners
on a contract basis for about 20 years is not worth for consideration
for regularization since the post of Sweeper does not exist in the
Corporation at present. When Sweeper's position is abolished in the
Corporation, the question of the availability of sanctioned vacancies
does not arise.
8. In the light of foregoing arguments, this court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioners have been continuously
employed on a contractual basis since 2003, pursuant to the
directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and have been rendering their
services for more than two decades with a fond of hope that their
services would eventually be regularized by the competent
authorities in future. In that view of the matter, the respondents
cannot summarily terminate the petitioners solely on the ground
that the sweeper posts have been abolished owing to the fact that
the cleaning is imperative in every Department.
9. Where contract workers have served diligently for more than
20 years, the denial of regularization amounts to unfair
discrimination. Notwithstanding the formal abolition for their posts,
the corporation evidently continues to require such services on a
daily basis, as the maintenance of cleanliness necessitates the
presence of such personnel.
10. Taking into account the principles laid down in Jaggo (2nd
supra), as well as the prolonged and uninterrupted service rendered
by the petitioners, the respondents are hereby directed to re-
consider the petitioners' case as a special case and take appropriate
steps to regularize their services wherever they are fit. It is however,
clarified that the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any back
wages or retrospective service benefits.
11. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3rd day of July, 2025
BDR
Note: LR is to be marked
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 20460 of 2022
Date: 03.07.2025
BDR
