Date of reserved for orders : 20.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 24.08.2026 Date of uploading : 01.09.2026 APHC010005512018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NOs: 375, 345, 348, 656 and 663/2018 WRIT PETITION NO: 375/2018 Between: 1. M PURUSHOTHMA, R/O KUPIGANIPALLY VILLATGE, 197 RAMAPURAM POST, GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRABANK, A GOVT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR SAIDABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER ANDHRA BANK, SAMRAT COMPLEX, BESIDE ANDHRA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE DY GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK ZONAL OFFICE, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK V.KOTA BRANCH V.KOTA-VILAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN 2 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBARI - 400 021, MAHARASTRA 6. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBARI - 400 021, MAHARASTRA 7. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, R.R. APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA NTR DIST. AP. 8. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, K.S.ICON SHOPPE, 4TH FLOOR, BEHIND BEST PRICE, BIRLA COMPOUND, KURNOOL. RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 8 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN WP NO.375 OF 2018. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ or orders or directions, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing th respondent bank as arbitrary,illegal, the services of the petitioner in the 4unlawful, unfair, iniquitous and unconstitutional besides violative of article14and21of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent bank to regularise the service of the petitioner in the cadre of sub- staff in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner until the disposal of the Writ Petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 expedite the date of hearing of the writ by fixing an early date which is 3 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch convenient to the Hon'ble Court for final hearing of the present writ petition in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to implead the proposed respondents 5 to 8 in the main W.P. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner herein to file Counter affidavit in WP 375/2018, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. k laskshmi narasimha sc for andhra bank WRIT PETITION NO: 345/2018 Between: 1. P RAMA KRISHNA,, S/O SUBBAIAH R/O 24-8,PEDAPAKALA VILLAGE PAKALA POST AND MANDAL CHITTOOR ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHARIMAN AND M D ANDHARA BANK, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 4 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch AND MANNAGING DIRECTOR SAIFABAD HYDERABAD 2. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHARA BANK SAMRAT COMPLEX 4TH FLOOR BESIDE ANDHARA BANK HEAD OFFICE SAIFABAD HYDERABAD 3. THE DY GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK ZONAL OFFICE TIRUPATHI CHOTTOOR 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK DAMALACHERUVU BRANCH CHITTOOR 5. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBARI - 400 021, MAHARASTRA 6. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBARI - 400 021, MAHARASTRA 7. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, R.R. APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA NTR DIST. AP. 8. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, K.S.ICON SHOPPE, 4TH FLOOR, BEHIND BEST PRICE, BIRLA COMPOUND, KURNOOL. RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 8 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN WP NO.345 OF 2018. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBARI - 400 021, MAHARASTRA 7. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, R.R. APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA NTR DIST. AP. 8. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, K.S.ICON SHOPPE, 4TH FLOOR, BEHIND BEST PRICE, BIRLA COMPOUND, KURNOOL. RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 8 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN WP NO.345 OF 2018. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ or order or directions especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus under article 226 of consitution of india or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents banks as arbitrary illegal unlawful unfair iniquitous and unconstitutional besides violative of article 14 and 21 of constitution of india and consequently direct the respondent bank to regularise the services of the petitioner in the cadre of sub staff in the interest of justice and pass 5 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitonr untill the disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 expedite the date of hearing of the writ by fixing an early date which is convenient to the Hon'ble Court for final hearing of the present writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to implead the proposed respondents 5 to 8 in the main W.P. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein to file Counter affidavit in WP 345/2Ol8, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. k laskshmi narasimha sc for andhra bank WRIT PETITION NO: 348/2018 6 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch Between: 1. G GOUTHAM KUMAR,, S/O G.SAMBA SIVA ACHARI R/O D.NO 16- 489, MGR STREET, CHITTOOR, CHITTOR DISTRICT. AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHAIRMAN AND M D ANDHRA BANK, ANDHRA BANK, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD 2. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, SAMRAT COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, BESIDE ANDHRA BANK HEAD OFFICE, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE DY GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK ZONAL OFFICE, TIRUPATI, CHITTOR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, DURGANAGAR COLONY BRANCH, CHITTOR, CHITTOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBARI - 400 021, MAHARASTRA 6. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBARI - 400 021, MAHARASTRA 7. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, R.R. APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA NTR DIST. AP 8. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, K.S.ICON SHOPPE, 4TH FLOOR, BEHIND BEST PRICE, BIRLA COMPOUND, KURNOOL. RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 8 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN WP NO.348 OF 2018. ...RESPONDENT(S): 7 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ or orders or directions, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner in the 4th respondent bank as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful,unfair,iniquitous and unconstitutional besides violative of article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent bank to regularise the service of the petitioner in the cadre of sub-staff in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner until the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner until the disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 expedite the date of hearing of the writ by fixing early date which is convenient to the Hon'ble Court for final hearing of the present writ petition in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to implead the proposed respondents 5 to 8 in the main W.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 8 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. k laskshmi narasimha sc for andhra bank WRIT PETITION NO: 656/2018 Between: 1. CH DEVAIAH, S/O.C.CHINNABBA, AGED 27 YEARS, OCCU PART TIME SUB STAFF IN ANDHRA BANK, R/O.H.NO.7-89, HARIJANAWADA, BANGARUPALLEM-VILLAGE AND MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA BANK, (A GOVT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, SAMRAT COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, BESIDE ANDHRA BANK HEAD OFFICE, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE DY GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK ZONAL OFFICE, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, MADANAPALLE BRANCH (0370) CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ or orders or directions, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner in the 4th respondent bank as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful, unfair, iniquitous and unconstitutional besides violative of article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent bank to 9 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch regularise the service of the petitioner in the cadre of sub-staff in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner until the disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 expedite the date of hearing of the writ by fixing an early date which is convenient to the Hon'ble Court for final hearing of the present writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K LAKSHMI NARASIMHA (SC FOR AB) WRIT PETITION NO: 663/2018 Between: 1. T SIVA KUMAR, S/O.T.SINIVASA RAO AGED 26 YEARS, OCC PART TIME SUB STAFF IN ANDHRA BANK, R/O.D.NO.4/154 KOTLATAPALLI, MADANAPALLI, KOLLABYLU (RURAL) CHITTOOR DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA BANK, (A GOVT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 10 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch 2. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, SAMRAT COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, BESIDE ANDHRA BANK HEAD OFFICE, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD 3. THE DY GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK ZONAL OFFICE, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK KOLLABYLU BRANCH CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBARI - 400 021, MAHARASTRA 6. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBARI - 400 021, MAHARASTRA 7. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, R.R. APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA NTR DIST. AP 8. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, K.S.ICON SHOPPE, 4TH FLOOR, BEHIND BEST PRICE, BIRLA COMPOUND, KURNOOL. RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 8 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN WP NO.663 OF 2018. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ or orders or directions, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for the vacancies of sub-staff in various branches of the respondent bank as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful, unfair, iniquitous and unconstitutional and violative of article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent bank to consider the petitioner for appointment to the cadre of sub-staff in the interest of justice and pass 11 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner until the disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 expedite the date of hearing of the by fixing an early date which is convenient to the Hon"ble Court for final hearing of the present writ petition in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to implead the proposed respondents 5 to 8 in the main W.P. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner herein ' to file Counter affidavit in WP 663/2018, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. k laskshmi narasimha sc for andhra bank 12 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: All these writ petitions are filed by different petitioners, but the issue involved in these petitions is identical. Hence, I feel it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by way of this common order by taking W.P.No.375 of 2018 as leading case. 2. W.P.No.375 of 2018 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a Writ or orders or directions, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing th respondent bank as arbitrary,illegal, the services of the petitioner in the 4unlawful, unfair, iniquitous and unconstitutional besides violative of article14and21of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent bank to regularise the service of the petitioner in the cadre of sub-staff in the interest of justice and pass…” 3. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification issued by the 3rd respondent bank in the year 2014 inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the post of Part Time Sub-Staff (PTS), the petitioner herein has applied for the post of Sweeper and after completion of due process, the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Sub-Staff (Sweeper) in the 3rd respondent bank situated at Durganagar, Chittoor on 13 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch 01.11.2014 on 1/3rd wage. Ever since, the petitioner has been rendering service diligently to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. 4. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner requested the respondent bank to regularize his services, instead of considering the same, the petitioner was directed not to attend the office without any reason; subsequently, upon several requests made by the petitioner, he was again appointed as Part Time Sweeper in the respondent bank at V. Kota village and mandal, Chittoor district. At that juncture, the respondent bank, vide Lr.No.0687/3/628, dated 21.01.2017, issued another notification inviting applications for the post of part-time sweeper on 1/3rd scale wages in any branch/office in Chittoor district. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is rendering services in the respondent bank as on the date of issuance of notification, having experience in the said post, instead of absorbing his services permanently, the respondent bank has issued a fresh notification arbitrarily. Aggrieved by the said action on the part of the respondent authorities, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The 3rd respondent filed a common counter affidavit in all these writ petitions admitting the fact that the petitioners have rendered part- time services as sweeper in various branches of the erstwhile Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India) within the jurisdiction of Chittoor district since 2014. It is further averred that pursuant to a recruitment notification 14 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch dated 21.01.2017 issued by the respondent bank calling for applications to fill up six posts of PTS in Chittoor district, the petitioners applied for the same and were considered along with other applicants. A total of 90 applications were received out of which, 55 candidates were found eligible and the petitioners, having not secured qualifying marks, were not selected. Despite the same, the petitioners cannot now seek regularization, bypassing the merit based process. The 3rd respondent has also filed an additional counter affidavit duly enclosing the original district wise evaluation sheets, the proceedings dated 01.12.2017 pertaining to provisional selection of candidates and the district wise selection list in pursuance of the notification dated 21.01.2017. It is further stated in the additional counter affidavit that petitioner and other similarly situated persons are working in various branches of the respondent bank and are being paid remuneration as per minimum rates of wages prevalent in the categorized area as fixed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. It is specifically mentioned that the petitioner and others are working upto eight hours a day in the absence of permanent staff. 6. Heard Sri. M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank. 15 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch 7. The Apex Court, dealt with regularization of contract/temporary employees in Shripal & another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad1 and Dharam Singh Vs. State of UP2. The relevant paragraph Nos.11 to 17 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shripal & another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (supra), are extracted herein under: 11. Furthermore, the Employer’s stance that there was never a direct employer-employee relationship is wholly unsubstantiated. If, in fact, the Appellant Workmen had been engaged solely through a contractor, the Employer would have necessarily maintained some form of contract documentation, license copies, or invoices substantiating the contractor’s role in hiring, paying, and supervising these workers. However, no such documents have been placed on record. Additionally, the Employer has failed to establish that wages were ever paid by any entity other than its own Horticulture Department, which strongly indicates direct control and supervision over the Workmen’s day-to-day tasks is a hallmark of an employer-employee relationship. Had there been a legitimate third-party contractor, one would expect to see details such as tender notices, contract agreements, attendance records maintained by the contractor, or testimony from the contractor’s representatives. The absence of these crucial elements undermines the Employer’s claim of outsourced engagement. In fact, it appears that the Workmen were reporting directly to the Horticulture Department officials, receiving 1 2025 INSC 144 2 2025 INSC 998 16 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch instructions on their duties, and drawing wages issued under the Municipality’s authority. This pattern of direct oversight and wage disbursement substantially negates the narrative that they were “contractor’s personnel.” Consequently, the discontinuation of their services carried out without compliance with statutory obligations pertaining to notice, retrenchment compensation, or approval under Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, stands on precarious ground. The very foundation of the Employer’s defense (i.e., lack of an employer- employee relationship) is not supported by any credible or contemporaneous evidence. 12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer’s municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project-based. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to long- serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent. 13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for 17 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements. 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Uma 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. 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer’s failure to furnish such records— despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfill ongoing municipal requirements year after year 18 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. 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 19 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch 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 labelled 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 20 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 21 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch 8. The Apex Court, in Dharam Singh Vs. State of UP (2 supra) held as extracted hereunder:- “11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (supra), to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer’s own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal & another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term ‘ad hocism’, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not “full- time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely 22 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision, dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about ‘rules’ and ‘vacancy’ while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained. 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State Governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The 23 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that ‘ad- hocism’ thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constrain” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” 9. By following the judgments of the Apex Court in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Jaggo v. Union of India, and Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, as referrred supra, this Court, in the case of Commissioner, Dharmavaram Municipality v. The President, Municipal Engineering Employees Association, Dharmavaram, considered the case of workmen, who had been continuously discharging their duties for the last 28 years, i.e., nearly three decades, and held that since they 24 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch were engaged in essential and perennial duties, they could not be relegated to a state of perpetual uncertainty. 10. It is also very apt to refer to the observations of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in M. Sivappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others3, wherein the Court opined that the practice of employing persons on a temporary basis to permanent post is not a healthy practice and observed further as herein under:- “Employment of persons on part-time or a temporary basis to such posts which form part of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service would, in our considered opinion, definitely be an act of exploitation by the State. A welfare State is required to be a model Employer and not an exploiter which indulges in slavery of its own citizens.” 11. The observations and findings of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in M.Shanmugam and Others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others4 at paragraph Nos.20 to 24 are extracted herein under:- “20. We have come across several cases where such temporary daily wage employees are removed from services and replaced by others depending upon the political situations prelevant at that point of time. Fortunately, for these appellants despite swinging of the political pendulum, they have 4 2023(1)CWC 495 25 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch been continuing to work. Even though their initial service was protected by the order of the Tribunal, at least from 01.12.2010 till date for nearly 12 years, there was no protection for their services by means of any order of Court. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court even after the judgment in Umadevi had held that in appropriate cases, it will be open to regularize the services of temporary daily rated employees if it is shown that the nature of the work done by them was permanent and they were served for more than 10 years. This Court has also issued several directions in this regard. 22. No doubt, the exploitation of this daily rated employees by the Government should be stopped. But, at the same time, if we refuse to regularize the persons like the appellants, who have put in 20 years of service as daily rated employees, we would only by encouraging exploitation by the State. If the private individual running an industry with 20 employees cannot have temporary employees and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employees (Conferment Permanent Status) Act would apply to them, we see no reason to allow those persons, who are working under the State or its wings to suffer the temporary employment for a span of 10 years and more. 23. The learned Government Advocate would submit that if we direct regularization of the appellants that would open the flood gates. We are alive to that fact. The Government is guilty of exploitation of at least these four individuals for more than 22 years now. If their service had been regularized, they would have been entitled to various benefits including increments, Dearness Allowance 26 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch etc. The Government should be a model employer. We find that the Government has been a worse employer in the case of these four appellants and it had been exploiting them for more than 22 years. Whatever is the difference between the daily wages that has been paid to the appellants and what should have been paid to them if they had been permanent employees would be the illegal gain made by the Government at the cost of these appellants. We should not be misunderstood as being sentimental or emotional, we are only sympathetic. Sympathetic to the cause of such persons, who are exploited by the mighty state. 24. We therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Writ Court and directing regularization of the appellants with effect from the date on which they completed 10 years in service. We make it clear that the appellants would be entitled to monetary benefits only from the date on which they came before this Court in W.P.No.32112 of 2018 i.e., on 03.12.2018.” 12. The petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Sub-Staff (Sweeper) in the 3rd respondent Bank at Durganagar, Chittoor, on 01.11.2014, pursuant to a recruitment notification issued in the year 2014 on 1/3rd wage. When the petitioner sought regularization of his services, he was directed not to attend duty, however, he was subsequently re-engaged as a Part-Time Sweeper at V. Kota. Thereafter, the respondent Bank issued a fresh notification dated 21.01.2017 for filling up six Part-Time Sweeper posts in Chittoor District. Though the petitioner was continuing in service and possessed relevant 27 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch experience, his services were not regularized. Admittedly, it is a settled law that a contract employee cannot be substituted by another contract employee and the same was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in “State of Haryana v. Piara Singh” (referred supra), wherein it is held that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. The said legal principle applies to the case on hand as the petitioners herein, who were appointed as part time workers were in service as on the date of issuance of a subsequent notification to fill up part time workers. 13. It is also the case of the respondent bank that the petitioners had rendered part-time services as sweepers in various branches of the erstwhile Andhra Bank. The respondent bank contended that, pursuant to the notification dated 21.01.2017, 90 applications were received, of which 55 candidates were found eligible. The petitioners, having participated in the selection process, failed to secure the requisite qualifying marks and were therefore not selected. The respondents contend that the petitioners cannot seek regularization by bypassing the prescribed merit-based selection process. The respondents, having admittedly availed themselves of the services of the petitioners on a continuous basis and utilized their services in various branches of the respondent bank, cannot now be permitted to contend 28 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch that the petitioners had rendered only part-time services or that they are seeking regularisation by bypassing the prescribed selection process. The respondents themselves have stated that the petitioners were being paid wages at the minimum rate of wages and were working for eight hours a day in various branches, particularly in the absence of permanent staff, which clearly demonstrates that the services rendered by the petitioners were neither occasional nor merely incidental, but were utilized to discharge work of a regular and perennial nature. Having extracted and utilized the services of the petitioners substantially on par with regular employees and having continued to engage them to meet the operational requirements of the Bank, the respondents cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by, on the one hand, treating the petitioners as persons rendering full-day services in the absence of permanent staff and, on the other, contending that their claim cannot be considered except by insisting upon a fresh merit-based selection process. The respondents, having themselves created and continued the arrangement and derived the benefit of the petitioners’ services for the functioning of their branches, cannot seek to disown the nature and extent of such services merely to defeat the petitioners’ legitimate claim, nor can they contend that the petitioners are attempting to bypass a selection process. 14. It is to be noticed that if there is no work to extract from them, the respondents should not have continued them to work in their departments for 29 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch the years together. It appears the respondents without taking steps to fill the sanctioned vacancies on permanent basis by following proper selection procedure, utilized the services of the petitioners for all these years by paying meager remuneration/wages which amounts to nothing but exploitation. In various departments of the State Government, without filling the sanctioned vacancies by following regular selection procedure, are engaging the educated and qualified persons on adhoc/ outsourcing/contract basis by paying meagre remuneration/wages and they are utilizing their services for more than one or two decades. Whenever they seek to regularize their services, the authorities are raising an objection that their appointments are not made by following procedure and also that they are not appointed against sanctioned posts. 15. It is settled law that when the authorities extract work from these petitioners on full time basis, day in and day out, keeping them as part time employees is unfair and opposed to good conscience. These petitioners have accepted such unfair treatment only with a hope that at some point of time their claim for regularization could be considered. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to languish as part time employees for indefinite period and be denied of the benefits of the regular employees forever. Whenever a class of employees like the petitioners herein face unfair situation of being employed on a daily wage basis, denied of all benefits as that of regular 30 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch employees, but discharging regular duties, such situation would only rob the State of its constitutional obligation to be reasonable to its citizens and provide adequate livelihood to support the sustenance of these petitioners, in furtherance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When these petitioners are allowed to be exploited by the authorities by paying them some pittance as daily wages and work has been extracted as that of regular employees, the least the respondents could do in such situation is to consider the claim for regularization at some point of time. 16. One has to keep in mind that after serving for such long periods, the persons who are engaged on adhoc/outsourcing/contract basis, may not be in a position to attend for regular selection process due to age bar. The Government being the model employer has to keep all these aspects in their mind, when they are rejecting the request of the petitioners for regularization even after utilizing their services for essential and perennial duties. In the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Jaggo’s case (supra), the Apex Court held that it is well established that the decision in Umadevi’s case (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary function of the State or its instrumentality. In fact, the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case (supra) is to prevent back door entries and illegal appointments only. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners are entitled to 31 VS,J W.P.No.375 of 2018 and batch the benefit of regularization, as their case is squarely covered by the principles enunciated therein and as such, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. In view of the detailed discussion in W.P.No.375 of 2018, W.P.Nos.345, 348, 656 and 663 of 2018 are also allowed. 18. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners along with consequential benefits, within a period of two (02) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 24.08.2026 Gss Whether the order is : Speaking Yes Reportable No