IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 1138 OF 2021 Between: P Yesunadha Surya Somanna. S/o Chinna Venkata Ramayya, Aged 50 years, Occ. Bill Collector Gram Panchayat, Adavikolanu, Nidamanuru Mandal, West Godavari District, R/o Bhuvanapalli. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, , Andhra Pradesh, Charitasri Hospital Building, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District at Eluru-534 001. The District Collector (PW), West Godavari District at Eluru-534 001. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to declare that action of the respondents in issuing proceedings in Roc.No.A7/2963/2011-8, dated 28-03-2014 rejecting the case of the applicant for absorption/regularization of his services as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory violating Article 14, 16 AND 21 of the Constitution of India, further declare that applicant is entitled to be absorbed regularized in service, applicant is entitled for minimum time scale of pay attached to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Bill Collector. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. may I lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 2 years 5 months 2 days in approaching this Honourable Court for filing the O.A. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G V S GANESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following order: APHC010412922021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Ninth Day of May Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable MsJustice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition Transfered from A.P.A.T.No: 1138 of 202± (O A No.2734 of 2017) [3311] Between; P.Yesunadha Surya Somanna ...Petitioner and ...Respondents State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: I.G.V.S.Ganesh Counsel for the respondents: I.G.P. for Panchayat Raj Rural Development The Court made the following Order; The writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Tribunal vide O.A.No.2734 of 2017. After transfer of the Administrative to this Court, it was numbered as W.P.(AT).No.1138 of 2021. The case writ petition is filed to declare that action of the respondents in issuing Roc.No.A7/2963/2011-8, dated 28.03.2014, rejecting proceedings in the case of the applicant/petitioner for absorption/regularization of his illegal arbitrary and discriminatory violating Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India; that further declare that applicant is services as and 21 entitled to be absorbed/regularized in service; that action of the respondents in not fixing the pay of the applicant in the revised pay illegal and arbitrary; and that pass such order or orders as the scales is 2 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB,J Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to pass any other appropriate relief. 02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows; The petitioner was appointed as a part-time Junior Assistant- cum-Bill Collector on daily wage basis in Yenikepally Gram Panchayat, Nidamarru Mandal, West Godavari District, through proceedings issued by the Sarpanch in Rc.No. 14/83-84, dated 24.03.1984. At the time of the appointment, the daily wage payable for the said post was Rs.6/-, as per the proceedings of the District Collector (P.W), West Godavari, Eluru, dated 09.01.1984. Subsequently, it was enhanced in stages to Rs.9/-, Rs.12/-, and Rs.14/-. With effect from January 1994, a consolidated monthly amount of Rs.480/- was fixed and later enhanced to Rs.600/- per month with effect from 01.01.1996. a. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, introducing a scheme for regularization of services of part-time / daily wage employees. In accordance with the said G.O., the District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari, Eluru, issued proceedings in Rc.No.3293/94-A4(Pts), dated 09.07.1996, appointing the petitioner as a full-time Bill Collector in Gram Panchayat, Vegivada, Pedavegi Mandal, on a regular time scale of pay of Rs. 1,595-3,020 with all usual allowances. Later, by proceedings dated 20.07.1996, the petitioner was re-allotted to Pothunuru Gram Panchayat, Nidamarru Mandal. Again, through proceedings dated 07.07.1998 in Rc.No.3331/98/A4.Pts, the petitioner was transferred to Adavikolanu Gram Panchayat. By proceedings dated 15.08.2004, the petitioner was transferred to Kolamuru Gram Panchayat, Undi Mandal, and subsequently reposted to Adavikolanu Gram Panchayat through b. 3 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB,J proceedings dated 27.09.2004, issued by the District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District. The petitioner, along with similarly situated employees, approached the A.P.A.T. by filing O.A.No.2671 of 2011, seeking a direction for regularization of their services from the date they completed 10 years of continuous full-time service in existing The petitioner contended in the said O.A. that he had been drawing time scale of pay since 09.07.1996 and that no financial burden would arise upon regularization, as the petitioner had been working against a sanctioned post within the cadre strength. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. by order dated 28.04.2011, following the ratio laid down in O.A.No.4488 of 2008, dated 08.02.2011 and directed the respondents to verify whether the applicants in that case had been appointed against regular vacancies and had completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006. If so, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider their cases for regularization, if otherwise eligible, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Despite the said directions, the respondents failed to implement the order, compelling the petitioner to initiate Contempt Proceedings in C.A.No.342 of 2014. Pursuant to the contempt notice, the respondents issued a speaking order in Roc.No.A7/2963/2011-1, dated 28.03.2014, rejecting the petitioner’s reguest for regularization. The rejection order is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the settled principles of law. c. vacancies. d. e. W,P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 4 BSB,J The rejection order issued cited the following two grounds: f. (i) that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service as per G.O.(P) No.112. F&P, dated 23.07.1997, and did not satisfy other eligibility criteria. • (ii) that the petitioner had been appointed by an incompetent authority, i.e., the Gram Panchayat, whereas the District Panchayat Officer is the competent authority for appointment of part-time posts as per G.O.Ms.No.174, PR & RD, dated 21.03.1988. The first ground is factually incorrect and contrary to the record. The petitioner was initially appointed on 24.03.1984 and had completed more than 10 years of continuous service by 09.07.1996, the date on which the D.P.O. granted the time scale pay. The petitioner’s service was uninterrupted and continuous. g- With regard to the second ground, although the initial appointment was made by the Sarpanch, the subsequent regularization and transfer proceedings were issued by the competent authority, i.e., the District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari. Having issued proceedings dated 09.07.1996 granting time scale and continued to issue further proceedings transferring the petitioner from one Gram Panchayat to another, the same authority cannot now dispute the legality or competence of the initial appointment. This amounts to approbation and reprobation and is impermissible in law. h. The Government, through G.O.(P) No.112, Finance and Planning (FW.PC III) Department, dated 23.07.1997, framed a comprehensive scheme for regularization of part-time employees working under the Statb. Government departments, local authorities, corporations, and I. W P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 5 BSB,J other bodies established by the State. The petitioner fulfills all conditions laid down under the said G.O., including qualification, age, and length of service. The petitioner has been continuously working in a sanctioned post for over 33 years without any break in service. The Suprenfie Court has consistently held that the employee who has rendered long and continuous service in sanctioned posts is entitled to regularization and payment of time scale attached to the settled legal position, the petitioner has not been scale attached to the post as per the J- post. Despite this gi anted even the minimum time subsequent pay revisions. The petitioner, having completed more than 33 years of service in a sanctioned post and fulfilled all the conditions be absorbed into regular service with for regularization, is entitled to effect from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous service. 5 filed the counter affidavit stating The respondents No.1 to briefly as follows; 3. a. The petitioner was appointed as part-time Junior Assistant-cum- Bill Collector by the Ganapavaram Mandal, Rc.No.14/83, dated 24.03.1984. The Sarpanch made this appointment ratification from the District Panchayat Officer, who is make such appointments, as per Sarpanch of Enikepalli Gram Panchayat, West Godavari District, through proceedings without obtaining the competent authority to G.O.Ms.No.174, P.R. & R.D. (Estt.lll) Department, dated 21.03.1988. District Panchayat Officer alone is authorized As per the said G.O., the to appoint part-time, full-time, consolidated pay, N.M.R., or daily wage employees whose services have not been provincialized. 6 W.P(AT) No. 1138 BSB,J Any appointment made by the Sarpanch on a daily wage basis requires ratification from the District Panchayat Officer. Additionally, G.O.Ms.No.439, P.R. (Estt.lV) Department, dated 10.09.1985, stipulates that the District Collectors must sanction the continuance of posts in Gram Panchayats only if the posts conform to the staffing pattern and the expenditure on establishment, including provincialized posts, does not exceed 30% of the Panchayat’s normal income. b. The government enacted the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994), pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994. The Act came into effect from 25.11.1993 and introduced a scheme for regularization of the services of persons appointed on daily wage/NMR/consolidated pay and who continued in service as on the said date. The Act aims to regulate appointments in public service, enforce the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, ensure implementation of the constitutional scheme of reservation, and take action against violations. c. d. The petitioner, while working as a part-time Junior Assistant-cum- Bill Collector, was temporarily appointed as a full-time employee, pending regularization of his services in accordance with the scheme introduced under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.112, Finance Department, dated 23.07.1997, which laid down eligibility criteria for regularization of part-time employees. As per the said G.O., only those part-time employees who completed a minimum of ten years of continuous service and were still working as on 25.11.1993 (the date of e. 7 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB.J commencement of Act 2 of 1994) were eligible for regularization. The petitioner, having been appointed on 24.03.1984, had not completed ten years of service by 25.11.1993 and therefore does not fulfill the eligibility condition under G.O.Ms.No.112. Although the petitioner claims to have completed ten years of service by 09.07.1996, the relevant date for determining eligibility is 25.11.1993, not the date of issue of time-scale proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner does not satisfy the basic requirement for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.112. f. In response to the petitioner’s reliance on the order passed in the respondents submit that the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, by its order dated 28.04.2011, directed the respondents to examine whether the applicants in that O.A. were appointed against regular vacancies and had completed ten years of continuous service as on 30.04.2006, and if so, to consider their cases for regularization if they were otherwise eligible and qualified. g- O.A.No.2671 of 2011 h. In compliance with the said directions, the District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari, issued a speaking order vide Proceedings NO.A7/2963/2011-8, dated 28.03.2014. The order clearly stated that the petitioner had not completed ten years of service by 25.11.1993 i terms of G.O.Ms.No.112, in was he appointed by the competent authority. Therefore, his request for regularization was examined and nor rejected for non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria, acknowledged receipt of this order on 29.03.2014. The petitioner I. The proceedings issued by the District Panchayat Officer i' Roc.No.3293/94-A4-Pts, dated 09.07.1996, temporarily appointing the in W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 8 BSB.J full-time Bill Collector in Vegiwada Gram Panchayat of the condition that his petitioner as a Pedavegi Mandal, were appointment was temporary Government. The petitioner was would not be regularized until the issued explicitly on pending regularization by the and clearly informed that his services Government issued specific orders to that effect. such order has been issued by In light of the above, and since no J- the services of employees workers, the petitioner cannot claim the basis of the proceedings Government of A.P. regularizing the temporarily appointed as full-time regularization of his services merely on dated 09.07.1996. The petitioner’s contention that he had completed more than ten years of service by 09.07.1996 is not relevant under G.O.Ms.No.112. The said G.O. requires completion of ten years of continuous service had not met this criterion, his k. of 25.11.1993. Since the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization. as case Yadav Yaragorla, learned counsel learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard both sides. Sri.Tagore Sri. G.V.S.Ganesh • 4. representing Sri.Vuyyuru Ram Manohar. learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the decision of fhe Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others Vs., , been consistently followed till entitled to regularization. He further submitted 5. The learned Umadevi and others' which has B.L date, the petitioner is (2006) 4 see 1 9 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB,J that this High Court, in U.V.S.R.Prasad and others Vs. State of A.P^., observed that the supreme Court is presumed to be aware of different procedures, G.Os, and enactments passed by different states by then, yet, directed all States, without making an exception to States which already have such scheme in place, to regularise service of eligible employee who completed 10 years of service as on 30.04.2006, even if their appointment is irregular and that it is only those who completed 10 years of service as per the order of a Court or Tribunal are not entitled to regularization. In this regard, he referred to paragraphs 43 and 53 of the decision and further contended that the contentions of the respondents were answered and covered by this decision and so, there no merit in objecting the relief still referring to the G.Os, totally ignoring the decision of the supreme Court above stated. He further referred to several cases. IS 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be regularized as per the reasons given in the speaking order and reiterated in the contents of the counter. 7. The relevant parts of the decisions cited are excerpted, a. Paragraphs No.43 and 53 of the decision in Umadevi’s case (supra) reads as follows: “43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the -2018(2) ALD282 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 10 BSB,J overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. the scheme for public Therefore, consistent with employment this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among would not confer any right on qualified persons, the same the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if engagement or appointment on daily wages dr would come to an end when it is it were an casual basis, the same discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment. worker is would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service the strength of such he made permanent, merely on if the original appointment was not made by or continuance, following a due process of selection as envisaged by the to the court to prevent regular relevant rules. It is not open recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc nature of their appointment, do employees who by the very not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue regularisation, or permanent directions for absorption continuance unless the recruitment itself was made 11 W.P(AT) No.1138 of 2021 BSB,J regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as “litigious employment” in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. 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 or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 ; 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] 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 as 12 W.P(AT) No.1138 of 2021 BSB,J but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation 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 above referred 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 regularise one-time measure. as a the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” on b. The decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari^ wherein at part of the paragraph No.11, it is mentioned as follows; 11. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 '(2010) 9 see 247 13 W.P(AT) No.1138 of 2021 BSB,J [the date of decision in Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi, (supra) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi, (supra) as a one-time measure.” c. The decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lai"*, wherein at paragraph No. 12, it is mentioned as follows: “12. We may at the outset refer to the following well- settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (/) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a '(2011) 2 see 429 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 14 BSB,J direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (/■/) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily- wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (/■//) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a 15 W.P(AT) No.1138 of 2021 BSB,J direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (/V) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.” d. The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Upendra Singh v. State of Bihar®, wherein part at paragraph No.9, it is mentioned as follows: “9 It may be mentioned that in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Court left a small window opened for those who were working on ad hoc/daily-wage basis for more than ten years, to regularise them as a one-time measure. However, that was also subject to the condition that they should have been appointed in duly sanctioned post. Further, while counting '(2018) 3 see 680 1 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 16 m BSB.J their ten years' period, those cases were to be excluded where such persons continued to work under the cover of orders of the courts or the tribunal ” e. The decision of Supreme Court in the case of University of Delhi V. Delhi University Contract Employees Union®, wherein part at paragraph No.20, extracted sub-paragraph No. 10, it is mentioned as follows: “.20....10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in State of Karnataka v.Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, 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 regularisation 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 (supra), will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (supra), has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 '(2021) 16 SCC 71 17 W.P(AT) No, 1138 of 2021 BSB,J 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 (supra) but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, (supra), 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 (supra), are so considered ” The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of M.P/, wherein at paragraph No.4 it is mentioned as follows: f. “4. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition gave directions for regularisation of the appellant from the date on which his juniors were regularised. This order was challenged by the State Government before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal of the State Government. The Division Bench rightly held that the learned Single Judge has not followed the principle of law as given by this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 see 1, as initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily-rated employee must be working. These two conditions were clearly missing in the case of the present appellant. The Division Bench in State of M.P. ’ (2023) 3 see 639 18 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB,J V. Vibhuti Shankar Pandey, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4645 of the High Court, therefore has, to our mind, rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 27-6- 2019 Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of M.P., (supra).” g. The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India®, wherein at paragraphs No.26 and 27, it is mentioned as follows: “26. While the judgment in Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] 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 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 19 BSB,J 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. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's not only contravenes international labour on a functioning standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” h. The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad,^ wherein at paragraph No. 14, it is mentioned as follows; ^ 2025 see OnLine Se 221 20 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB,J “14. The Respondent Employer places reliance Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] to contend that daily-wage temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Lima Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.” on or Uma Devi itself i. The decision of the supreme Court in Mahender v. Pottisreeramulu Telugu University^®, wherein at paragraph No.47 it is mentioned as follows; “47. It is not known why the 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] explained in M.L.Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247] undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.04.2006 and subject them to as and a process 2020 see Online TS 3356 21 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB,J verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services.” j. The decision of the Supreme Court in B.Suresh Vs.State of A.P^\ at paragraph No.17, it is mentioned as follows: “17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and following the decisions of this Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the case of the petitioners can be considered for regularization by considering their long standing position in their respective cadres. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, setting aside the impugned proceedings vide No.SE/TGP/NDL/AB/Supdt./A3/65M, dated 31.01.2019 issued by the 4**^ respondent.” k. He further submitted that the decision in the case of Umadevi, [(2006) 4 SCC 1] has been followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kodali Raju and others Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C^^, wherein it was held that the regularization must be with retrospective effect from the date of actual entitlement of regularization. The relevant part of the decision at paragraphs 23 and 24 is as follows; “23. Both the counsel have relied upon the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon paragraph 53 of the said judgment. Whereas the learned W.P.No.4361 of 2020 dated 20.12.2024 2010 SCC OnLine AP 724 22 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB,J counsel appearing for respondents relied upon paragraphs 46 and 47 of the said judgment. Here it is a case of casual appointment and may not be through selection process. It can at best be said to be an irregular appointment, but not an illegal appointment. The sweeping and cleaning of buses is a perennial work attached to the main activity of the Corporation. Since the petitioners have been treated as working continuously for more than 10 years, regularization of their services have to be considered in the light of the said judgment. During the years 2004 and 2010, more than 4000 posts were sanctioned by the Government for regularizing the services of temporary/contract employees working in the Corporation. The judgment rendered in Umadevi case further was explained in State of Karnataka v. L Kesari [(2010) 9 see 247], wherein it is stated that the true effect of the direction at paragraph 53 of Judgment in Umadevi case is that all persons who have worked for more than 10 years as on 10.4.2006 without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The continuation of petitioners in the Corporation for the last more than 21 years itself can be construed that there are vacant posts available and the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services and to be put on regular timescale. 24. For all the above reasons, the respondents are directed to regularize services of the petitioners from the 23 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB,J date when they have completed 10 years of However, they shall be put on timescale from 1.9.2010 with notional increments from the date of regularization. If there is any revision of timescales, the same shall also be extended notionally. Further, it is made clear that the petitioners are not entitled for any arrears of increments and revised pay scales etc.” service. I. He further referred to the decision in the case of U.V.S.R Prasad and others Vs. State of A.P, (supra), followed the decision in the case of Umadevi, (supra) at paragraph No.53 overriding the earlier G.Os, including the G.Os No.212 and 112 (supra). In this regard, he has relied on mainly decision at paragraphs Nos. 16, 17 and 19 which are as follows: “16. Concededly, the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini, [(2009) 8 SCC 431] has not referred to the judgment in Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. Thus, in our opinion, the directions given in Para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi, (supra) and the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 along with its amendments and the judgment in A. Manjula Bhashini, (supra), operate in different situations. 17. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi, (supra) was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while 24 W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 BSB,J \ N denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption persons, who entered service through backdoors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, absorption/regularization of those, who of consciously ordered for onetime were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04- 1994, while giving directions in Para No. judgment in Uma Devi, (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States 53 of the where State exist. No. 212, dated enactments banning regularization/absorption Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. 22.04.1994, do not whittle down the width and the judgment in Manjula Bashini [(2009) 8 SCC 431] does lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi, (supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. not respondents No. 212, petitioners, criteria laid down in Para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi, (supra). dated 22-04-1994, to deny regularization to the who have, admittedly, satisfied the 19. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27-06- 2017, in O.A. No. 1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal IS set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of W.P(AT) No. 1138 of 2021 25 BSB,J the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi, (supra). This process must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner establish that all those who completed continuous service for 10 years before the date of 10.04.2006 are entitled to regularization of service, irrespective of the earlier G.Os., however subject to conditions in the decisions. In the present case, the main objections are that the petitioner was appointed by the Sarpanch, but the competent authority is D.E.O. and the appointment was not ratified. But, as rightly contended by the petitioner, the action of D.E.O. detailed in the petition noted above indicate that there is constructive ratification. Further, the petitioner has always been posted against sanctioned posts and has been given pay as per the revision through PRCs. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service from the date of completion of qualifying 10 years of service from the initial appointment he completed such service before the date of the judgment of the supreme Court in Umadevi case, (supra). The reasons assigned in the impugned speaking order are not in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court. In the result, the petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to 8. as 9. costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. i I 26 W.P(AT) No.1138 of 2021 BSB,J Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, DistrictPanchayatOfficer Westons 5. The District Pcii . Godavari District Collector (PW), West Godavari ; /e CC to Sri G V S Ganesh, Advocate [OPUCI ■ development 8. Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER Pradesh Pradesh 4. The at Eluru-534 001. District at Eluru-534 001 H/gh Court of ram HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER WP(AT).No.1138 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WPIATI WITHOUT COSTS ^