Telangana High Court
L. Sandeep Kumar Jadhav vs The State Of Telangana on 8 June, 2026
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.35058 OF 2023
Between:
Sri L.Sandeep Kumar Jadhav
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and Others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 08.06.2026
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes.
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
________________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.35058 OF 2023
% 08.06.2026
Between:
# Sri L.Sandeep Kumar Jadhav
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana and Others.
... Respondents
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Pratap Narayan
Sanghi, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri
Avadesh Narayan Sanghi,
^Counsel for Respondents: G.P for Services-I
? Cases Referred:
(i) 2025 INSC 144
(ii) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209
(iii) AIRONLINE 2023 SC 702
(iv) (2023) 16 SCC 458
(v) AIRONLINE 2022 TEL 242
(vi) 2023(1) ALD 259 (TS)
(vii) 2018(2) ALD 282 (DB)
(viii) SCC ONLINE SC 1735
(ix) AIR 2026 SC 997
3
(xi) The judgment of this Court, dated 06.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019
(xii) The Division Bench order of this Court dated
25.11.2024 passed in W.A.No.1324 of 2024, dated
25.11.2024.
(xiii)The Division Bench order of this Court dated
10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2010 and 854 of
2012 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010
passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.No.48 of 2008
xiv) The Division Bench order of this Court dated
21.04.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2020 in 1 of 2019
and W.P.No.23057 of 2019
(xv) SLP No.32847 of 2024
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.35058 OF 2023
DATED 08.06.2026
Between:
Sri L.Sandeep Kumar Jadhav
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and Others
... Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior
designated counsel representing Sri Avadesh Narayan
Sanghi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner on record and learned Government Pleader for
Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer
as under:
“… to issue appropriate Writ Order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by
declaring the action of the respondent in not considering
my case for regularization as wholly illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of
Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to consider my case for regularization with
effect from my original date of appointment i.e.,16.12.
2006 with all consequential benefits in the interest of
justice and pass…”
5
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the
averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit by the
petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is as
under:
The petitioner possesses qualifications of M.A. (Hindi),
M.P.Ed., M.Phil., and Ph.D. in Physical Education. The petitioner
was initially appointed as Physical Director in Osmania Medical
College pursuant to proceedings dated 16.12.2006 after
undergoing a selection process. Subsequently, the Government
issued G.O.Rt. No. 86 dated 24.01.2007 for filling four posts of
Physical Directors in various medical colleges. Upon selection,
the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis through
proceedings dated 15.06.2007. Thereafter, a Selection
Committee vide proceedings Rc.No.CDS/OMC/2008/1920 dated
07.07.2008, appointed the petitioner as a full-time contract
Physical Director.
It is further the case of the petitioner that since
16.12.2006, the petitioner has been continuously discharging
duties as Physical Director without interruption, though
petitioner’s appointment was described under different
nomenclatures such as outsourcing, part-time, and contract
6
employment and there was no change in duties or service
conditions despite such reclassification. Following the filing of
O.A. Nos. 7915 of 2008 and 6905 of 2009 by similarly situated
employees, the petitioner filed W.P.(TR) No. 1883 of 2017,
wherein this Court, by order dated 20.03.2019, directed
consideration of petitioner’s representation dated 20.01.2014.
However, petitioner’s claim was rejected through proceedings
dated 25.02.2020. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner had filed W.P.
No. 13106 of 2020 seeking regular pay scale benefits.
Subsequently, relying on G.O.Ms. No. 38 dated 30.04.2023,
under which similarly situated employees were regularized, the
petitioner had filed the present writ petition seeking
regularization of petitioner’s services from 16.12.2006 with all
consequential benefits.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD:
A. The proceedings vide Rc.No.CDS/OMC/2007, dated
15.06.2007 issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of the
petitioner is extracted hereunder:-
With reference to the above cited, I am to inform you
that Sri. L. Sandeep Kumar, Jadav, is appointed as
Physical Director in this College on third party
contract basis for a period of 11 Months with
consolidated pay of Rs. 6,000.00 (Rupees Six
7Thousand Only.) per month with following terms and
conditions.
1. He should assist the existing Physical Director in
Maintaining the Ground and Guiding the Students in
various Games.
2. He should work 01 hours in the Morning from 7.30 A.Μ.
to 08.30 A.M. and from Evening 4.00 PM. to 07.00 P.M. in
the evening.
3. He should help in university selections which will be held
at O.M.C., or else where.
4. He should assist the Principal, in all the sports activities
in the College.
5. He can be terminated at any time if the committee is
not satisfied by his work.
6. The Salary Cheque will be paid in the name of the firm.
7. He should sign the attendance in the Principal, Peshi
Every Day.
The Salary will be paid from College Development Fund
after obtaining the satisfactory certificate from Vice
Principal, OMC, Hyderabad, and Sports Advisor of this
College,
B. The letter vide Rc.No.CDS/OMC/2009, dated
20.06.2009 addressed by the respondent No.3 to the
Deepthi Social Organization is extracted hereunder:-
With reference to the subject cited, I am to inform you that
Sri L.Sandeep kumar Jadhav, sponsored earlier from your
firm as Physical Director has been re-appointed in view
of Inter medical College Sports and Games which are
going to be held in this College with a consolidated
pay of Rs.6,000/- P.M. with following terms & conditions
for a period of (6) months from the date of reporting to
8duty. 1.He should sign the Attendance at the Principal
Peshi everyday.
2.He should work from 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. everyday.
3. He is appointed to assist the Principal and Students in all
Sports events held in this college and any events held out
of the college.
4. He should work for extra hours if necessary.
5.He can be terminated at any time without assigning any
reasons and if committee is not satisfied by his work.
6. His salary will be paid from the ADF budget allotted to
this college.
The salary will be paid after obtaining satisfactory
certificate and Attendance from Vice-Principal and
Assistant Director (Admn.), OMC, Hyd
C. The relevant portion of the proceedings vide
Rc.No.CDS/OMC/2015/473/906, dated 19.05.2015
addressed by the 3rd respondent to the respondent No.2 is
extracted hereunder:-
The Government vide Memo No 6373/A2/2011 Dt. 13.10.2011
has requested to furnish proposals as per Cir. Memo. No. 11606-
B/419/A2/SMPC/2009, Fin Dept., dates 24-04-2009 for taking
further action on the request of Sri. L.Sandeep Jadhav as
Physical Director for extension of contract period and
payment of salary under 300 OCS for which it has been
ordered to obtain the communication from the office of the DME.
AP., but the proposals have been forwarded (Copy enclosed )vide
16th cited
9D. The relevant portion of the order, dated 20.03.2019
passed in W.P.(TR) No.1883 of 2017 is extracted
hereunder:-
“This Court, having considered the rival submissions,
is of the considered view that the writ petition can
be disposed of directing the respondents to consider
the representation submitted by the petitioner,
dated 20.01.2014, and pas appropriate orders, in
accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
E. The proceedings vide Rc.No.16153/G2/2019, dated
25.02.2020 of the 2nd respondent is extracted hereunder:-
With reference to the letter of the Principal, Osmania Medical
College, Hyderabad vide reference 1″ and 2nd cited and keeping
in view of the representation of Sri L.Sandeep Kumar Jadhav,
working as Physical Director on outsourcing basis( through
third party agency) is examined as per rules and it is informed
that it is not feasible to draw salary from 300 OCS as his services
are being used by the Principal, Osmania Medical College,
Hyderabad from CDS i.e College Development Society.
Hence the representation Dt. 20-1-2014 of L. Sandeep Kumar
Jadhav, Physical Director have been examined and rejected.
F. The relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.38, dated
30.04.2023 is extracted hereunder:-
2. The above administrative departments and HoDs shall take
necessary further action for issue of individual name-wise orders
and appointment orders in terms of the proposals submitted by
them, They shall also ensure that the appointments are made
against sanctioned clear vacancies, no senior eligible person is
overlooked or omitted and due verification of the relevant
documents/certificates is made.
10
G. The proceedings vide Lr.Rc.No.CDS/OMC/2006, dated
30.12.2006 addressed by the respondent No.3 to the M/s.
Deepthi Social Organization, Hyderabad is extracted
hereunder:-
M/s, Deepthi Social Organisation, Hyderabad is hereby
informed that the services of Sri Sandeep Kumar Jadhav,
Physical Director as sponsored by you has been accepted
with consolidated pay of Rs.. 6000/-per month under the
supervision of the sports advisor Dr. Kumara Swamy Tutor
in Anatomy Dept of Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad.
H. Memo No.6373/A.2/2011, dated 14.12.2012 issued by
the Health,Medical and Family Welfare (A.2) Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh is extracted hereunder:-
” The attention of the Director of Medical Education,
Hyderabad is invited to the reference cited and he is
requested to examine to fill up the vacant posts of
Physical Directors on regular basis and furnish a
report to Government for taking further action in the
matter.
I. The letter vide Rc.NO.19568/E3.C/2009, dated
12.03.2013 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the
Principal Secretary to Government, Health, Medical &
family Welfare Department, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad
is extracted hereunder:-
I invite kind attention of the Government to the reference cited
on the above subject, I have to state that the subject matter has
been examined based on the information received from the
teaching institution while requesting for extension of contract
11period of the Physical Directors working in the teaching
institutions and it is found that, the services of the Physical
Directors in the teaching institutions are very essential as per the
MCI norms.
Further, I am to inform that, as per the SMPC G.O.Ms.No.
487. dt. 03-03-2010, the total cadre strength of the Physical
Director in the state under the administrative control of the
Director of Medical Education, A.P., Hyderabad in the teaching
institutions are 12 posts. Out of it two Physical directors on
regular basis i.e. one is at SV.Medical College, Tirupathi and
another one is at Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada. Two
posts of Physical Directors which are sanctioned to Government,
Medical College, Ananthapur and Rangaraya Medical College,
Kakinada, on temporary basis and remaining posts of Physical
Directors are fallen vacant and some was occupied by the
contract based and out sourcing employees le., at (1)
Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad (2) Gandhi Medical
College, Secunderabad (3) Guntur Medical College. Guntur (4)
Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool (5) Government Dental College
& Hospital, Hyderabad (6) Government Dental College &
Hospital, Vijayawada (7) Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam
(8) Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal etc.Further, as per the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.
154, HM&FW (A2) Dept., dt: 04-05-2012. The following is the
methods of appointment to the post of Physical DirectorI. (1) By appointment by transfer from the category of Physical
Director (Non-Gazetted) working in Medical Colleges.
(2) If no suitable or eligible candidates is available for
appointment by method (1) above by Direct recruitment.
II Rule (5) Qualification.
Must posses a Degree in Physical Director of Government College
of Physical Education. Hyderabad or a Diploma in Physical
Education in YMCA college of Physical Education. Saidapet or if
any recognised Institution or an equivalent qualification.
III. The existing scale to the post of Physical Director is Rs.
20680-46960.
12
Therefore, I request the Government to issue necessary orders
in the matter at an early date.
J. The proceedings, vide Rc.No.1324/Estt/OMC
Hyd/2019, dated 11.12.2019 addressed by the respondent
No.3 to the respondent No.2 is extracted hereunder:-
With reference to subject cited, the following certain information
pertains to the Post of Physical Director for appointment at Osmania
Medical College Hyderabad submitting for taking necessary action.
It has been given understand vide L.r. No. 19568/E3.C/2009 dated 11-
10-2009, to take action for appointment of Physical Director post on
contract basis at OMC Hyderabad, duly following the procedure laid
down in the GO.Ms.No. 1040 HM&FW(A2) Department, dated
22.09.2001. But, due to not obtaining of approval from the Director
Medical Education AP Hyderabad, the appointment of Physical Director
on contract basis procedure is been cancelled and the matter was
taken up to the notice of the Director of Medical Education AP
Hyderabad vide reference 1 cited.
with Accordingly, a letter was addressed to the Government vide
reference 2nd cited with a request to issue necessary orders on the
letter submitted by the Principal OMC vide reference 1st cited for
appointment and extension of contract services of Physical Director,
under 300 OCS.
Further, the Government has instructed to furnish the proposals as per
the Circular Memo No.11606-B/4/19/A2/SMPC/2009 Fin(SMPC) Dept.
dated 24-4-2009 for extension of contract period and payment of
salary to the contract employee under 300 OCS vide reference 3rd
cited. Consequently, a detailed proposal was submitted to the
Government vide reference 4th and 5th cited.
Later, the Government have asked to examine towards fill up the
vacant posts of Physical Directors on regular Basis and furnish a report
to the Government for taking necessary action vide reference 6th
cited.
In accordance to the Government Memo, a report has been submitted
to the Government vide reference 7th cited and no any other orders
have been received as on date in the said matter by this office.
13
Further, the Government have requested the Commissioner, of
Collegiate Education Hyderabad to offer her remarks on the feasibility
of deputation of Physical Directors working under her control of DME If
so, and furnish the necessary proposals to this department. Vide
reference 8th cited.
In connection with the above, the Commissioner of Colegiate
Education has offered here remarks in the letter vide reference 9th
cited stating that, the Department of Collegiate Education cannot spare
the services of Physical Director on deputation basis to the Department
of Medical Education Hyderabad.
In view of the all above, I am to state that, the post of
Physical Director which is vacant since long period at OMC
Hyderabad on regular basis sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No.132 Fin
(SMPC) dated 08.06.2007 and the Medical Council of India
(Team) has insisted to fill up the post immediately on regular
basis.
Therefore, I request you to kindly arrange to notify the
vacancy of Physical Director (1) at Osmania Medical College,
Hyderabad towards to fill up on regular basis.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
5. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions:
a) Despite petitioner’s qualifications and long years of service,
the petitioner had been subjected to arbitrary treatment by the
respondents depriving the petitioner of regularization and service
benefits for more than two decades.
b) Pursuant to a notification issued by Osmania Medical
College, the petitioner was selected through a due selection
14process and had been appointed as Physical Director vide
proceedings dated 16.12.2006.
c) Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt. No. 86, dated
24.01.2007, proposing to fill four posts of Physical Director in
various Medical Colleges, including Osmania Medical College. The
petitioner applied for the said post and, upon selection, the
petitioner was appointed on contract basis vide proceedings
dated 15.06.2007, though the petitioner had continued to
discharge the same duties of Physical Director.
d) Thereafter, a Selection Committee constituted by the
competent authority again selected the petitioner and appointed
the petitioner as a full-time Physical Director on contract basis
vide Proceedings Rc. No. CDS/OMC/2008/1920, dated
07.07.2008.
e) The appointment by contract is one of the recognized modes
of recruitment under Rule 4 of the Telangana State and
Subordinate Service Rules and that, notwithstanding changes in
nomenclature such as outsourcing, part-time or contract
employee, the petitioner has continuously worked as Physical
Director without any interruption from 16.12.2006 onwards.
15
f) There exists a sanctioned vacancy of Physical Director
in Osmania Medical College and that the petitioner has
been working against the said vacancy since 2006.
g) Two similarly situated Physical Directors, namely T. Rajendra
Raj and Stanley Jones, had approached the erstwhile
Administrative Tribunal and were continued in service. However,
after they secured alternative employment elsewhere and
discontinued their services, the petitioner alone continued to
discharge duties uninterruptedly in the college.
h) Aggrieved by the respondents’ stand that petitioner’s case
could not be considered in view of the Tribunal orders passed in
O.A. No. 7915 of 2008 and O.A. No. 6905 of 2009, the petitioner
filed W.P. (Tr.) No. 1883 of 2017 before this Court. By order
dated 20.03.2019, this Court directed the respondents to
consider petitioner’s representation dated 20.01.2014. However,
the respondents, through proceedings dated 25.02.2020,
rejected petitioner’s claim for grant of regular scale of pay under
G.O.Ms. No. 300, without properly considering petitioner’s
continuous service and claim for regularization.
i) Challenging the proceedings dated 25.02.2020 and seeking
the regular scale of pay attached to the post of Physical Director,
16
the petitioner filed W.P. No. 13106 of 2020. Despite continuously
performing duties in a regular post for several years, the
respondents have repeatedly altered the nomenclature of
petitioner’s appointment solely to deny petitioner’s regular status
and attendant service benefits, while extracting services identical
to those rendered by regular employees.
j) The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 38, dated 30.04.2023,
notifying various vacancies and extending the benefit of
regularization to several similarly situated employees. The said
G.O. also included a vacancy of Physical Director under the
Director of Medical Education, which, continues to remain vacant.
k) Despite petitioner’s uninterrupted service from 16.12.2006
and availability of vacancies, the respondents have failed to
consider petitioner’s case for regularization, thereby acting
arbitrarily and discriminatorily in violation of Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner is entitled for the regularization of
petitioner’s services with effect from 16.12.2006 with all
consequential benefits.
17
6. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I
appearing on behalf of the respondents mainly puts forth
the following submissions:
a) The petitioner was never appointed by the Government
through any regular recruitment process. On 16.12.2006, a
third-party outsourcing agency, Deepthi Social
Organisation, forwarded two names to Osmania Medical
College for engagement on a one-year contract basis, one
of whom was the petitioner. This correspondence itself
established that the engagement was purely through an
outsourcing agency.
b) Pursuant thereto, on 30.12.2006, the Principal, Osmania
Medical College, informed Deepthi Social Organisation that
the services of the petitioner as Physical Director had been
accepted on a consolidated monthly remuneration under
the supervision of the Sports Advisor. This arrangement
clearly demonstrated the absence of any employer-
employee relationship between the petitioner and the
Government.
c) The reliance is placed upon G.O.Rt. No. 86 dated
24.01.2007, whereby the Director of Medical Education
was permitted to engage four Physical Directors through
18
outsourcing agencies for a period of one year and that the
Government itself sanctioned only outsourced
engagements and not regular appointments.
d) Upon completion of the academic year, the petitioner’s
services were terminated on 30.04.2007. Subsequently,
owing to institutional requirements, the petitioner was re-
engaged on 15.06.2007 for eleven months through the
same outsourcing agency. Such- repeated engagements
and disengagements negate any claim of continuous
service.
e) In June 2008, a fresh process was undertaken for engaging
a Physical Director on a contract basis. The petitioner was
again engaged on 07.07.2008. Around the same time,
another candidate, Sri T. Rajender Raj, was selected and
appointed through a different outsourcing agency pursuant
to G.O.Rt. No. 1291 dated 16.08.2008.
f) Following interim orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 7915 of 2008 filed by
Sri T. Rajender Raj, the petitioner’s services were
terminated on 04.10.2008 and Rajender Raj was continued
in the post. Thereafter, the petitioner sought re-
engagement through a representation dated 11.05.2009
19
and was once again engaged through Deepthi Social
Organisation on 20.06.2009 for a limited period.
g) The petitioner subsequently filed W.P. (TR) No. 1883 of
2017 seeking continuation of petitioner’s services. By order
dated 20.03.2019, this Court directed consideration of
petitioner’s representation. Thereafter, a speaking order
dated 25.02.2020 rejected petitioner’s claim, specifically
recording that regular salary could not be drawn from
Government funds and that petitioner’s services were
being utilized through the College Development Society.
Significantly, this speaking order has never been
challenged.
h) The present writ petition seeking regularization from the
date of initial engagement is wholly misconceived. The
petitioner was at all times a third-party contractual worker,
engaged, terminated and re-engaged depending upon
institutional necessity. He never held a sanctioned post,
never underwent a constitutional recruitment process, and
never acquired any legal right to regularization.
i) The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are
distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the employees had
undergone recognized selection processes, rendered
20
uninterrupted service for long durations, worked against
sanctioned posts, or established discrimination through
regularization of similarly situated persons. None of those
factors exist in the present case.
j) Reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this
court dated 19.11.2024 in W.P.No.10744 of 2023 in”V.
Praveen Kumar v. State of Telangana” which declared
Section 10-A of the “Telangana Regulation of Appointments
to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and
Pay Structure Act, 1994” as unconstitutional and held that
contractual employees cannot thereafter be regularized.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned
Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of
the respondents contends that the present writ petition
needs to be dismissed.
7. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I
appearing on behalf of the Respondents placed reliance
upon the following judgments in support of respondent’s
case:-
• Secretary, State of Karnataka& Ors v. Umadevi &
Ors, (2006) 4 SCC 1
21• Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen,
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007) 1
SCC 408• Full Bench Judgment in W.P. No. 27295 of
1998dated 09.11.2009• State of Jammu & Kashmir& Ors v. District Bar
Association, Bandipora(2017) 3 SCC 410• Vibhuti Shanker Pande v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2023) 3 SCC 639• Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of
Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801• V. Praveen Kumar v. State of Telangana, W.P. No.
10744 of 2013 & batch, Judgment dated
19.11.2024• Satish Chander Sharma v. State of Himachal
Pradesh in W.P. (Civil) No. 179 of 2018, Judgment
dated 16.04.2025• M.D. Raheem v. State of Telangana W.P. No.
34477 of 2023, Judgment dated 11.07.2025
8. This Court on perusal of record makes the following
observations and notes them down as follows:-
i) The limited relief sought for by the petitioner is a
direction to the respondents to consider the request of
the petitioner for regularization with effect from the date
22of the original appointment of the petitioner i.e.,
16.12.2006 along with all consequential benefits.
ii) The petitioner herein had been appointed as
Physical Director of Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad
on a third party contract basis and to that effect, the
respondent No.3 addressed a letter, vide
Lr.Rc.No.CDS/OMC/2006, dated 30.12.2006 (referred to
and extracted above) informing M/s. Deepthi Social
Organization, Hyderabad that the services of the
petitioner as Physical Director as sponsored by the M/s.
Deepthi Social Organization had been accepted on a
consolidated pay of Rs.6,000/- per month under the
supervision of Dr.Kumara Swamy, Sports Advisor and
Tutor in Anatomy Dept., of Osmania Medical College,
Hyderabad.
iii) The petitioner vide Rc.No.CDS/OMC/2007, dated
15.06.2007 (referred to and extracted above) addressed
by the respondent No.3 to the M/s. Deepthi Social
Organization, Hyderabad, was informed that the petitioner
had been appointed as Physical Director of Osmania
Medical College on a 3rd party contract basis for a period
23
of 11 months on a consolidated pay of Rs.6,000/- per
month subject to certain specific terms and conditions.
iv) The letter vide Rc.No.CDS/OMC/2009, dated
20.06.2009(referred to and extracted above) issued by
the respondent No.3 to the M/s.Deepthi Social
Organization, again intimated that the petitioner had
been reappointed as Physical Director of Osmania Medical
College on 3rd party contract basis for a period of six
months from the date of reporting to duty.
v) That vide Memo No.6373/A.2/2011, dated
14.12.2012 (referred to and extracted above) the
respondent No.1 requested the respondent No.2 to
examine the feasibility of filling up the vacant posts of
Physical Directors on a regular basis and to furnish a
report to Government for taking further action in the
matter, specifically referring to the appointment of the
petitioner herein as Physical Director on a contract basis
at Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad under 300 OCS.
vi) That vide letter Rc.NO.19568/E3.C/2009, dated
12.03.2013 (referred to and extracted above) respondent
24
No.2 had requested the 1st respondent herein to issue
necessary orders pertaining to the subject issue of
appointment of the petitioner as Physical Director on
contract basis at Osmania Medical College at Hyderabad
under 300 OCS.
vii) That the letter vide Rc.No.CDS/OMC/2015/473/906,
dated 19.05.2015 addressed by the 3rd respondent to the
respondent No.2 sought certain clarifications and detailed
information pertaining to the termination and subsequent
reappointment to the post of Physical Director in Osmania
Medical College on a 3rd party contract basis.
Viii) The last few paragraphs of the said proceedings,
dated 19.05.2025 clearly indicate that the vide memo
No.6373/A2/2011, dated 13.10.2011 a request had bee
made to furnish proposals as per Circular Memo
No.11606-B/419/A2/SMPC/2009, Finance Department,
dated 24.04.2009, for taking further action on the request
of the petitioner herein for extension of the contract
period and payment of salary under 300 OCS.
25
ix) It was also directed that the communication be
obtained from the office of the DME, A.P., and further the
salary of the petitioner had been enhanced from Rs.6,000
to Rs.12,000/-per month, which is being paid from the
Academic Development Fund.
x) This Court passed orders, dated 20.03.2019 in
W.P.(TR) No.1883 of 2017 filed by the petitioner herein,
directing the respondents therein to consider the
representation of the petitioner, dated 20.01.2014
pertaining to continuation of the petitioner herein in
service as Physical Director at Osmania Medical College,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of the order in accordance to law.
xi) Proposals had been submitted for filling the vacant
post of Physical Director at Osmania Medical College at
Hyderabad on a regular basis, as the post had remained
vacant for a considerable period and the proposal sought
notification of the said post to the concerned Authority for
recruitment on regular basis as reflected in the
proceedings, dated 11.12.2019 of the 3rd respondent.
26
xii) Proceedings, dated 11.12.2019 clearly indicates that
the Government had vide Memo, dated 14.12.2012
directed the Authorities to examine the issue of filling up
the vacant post of Physical Director on a regular basis
and furnish a report to the Government for taking
necessary action. In response to the Government Memo, a
report had been submitted to the Government vide letter,
dated 12.03.2013 by the 2nd respondent.
xiii) The last two paragraphs of the said letter, dated
11.12.2019 (referred to and extracted above) clearly
indicate that the post of Physical Director sanctioned vide
G.O.Ms..No.132, Fin(SMPC) Dept., dated 08.06.2007 had
remained vacant for a long period at OMC Hyderabad. The
letter further requested that the said post be filled
immediately on a regular basis and specifically sought
notification of the vacancy of Physical Director (01) at
Osmania Medical College Hyderabad towards to fill up on
regular basis.
xiv) The request made by the petitioner in pursuance to
the orders of this Court, dated 20.03.2019 passed in
WP(TR) No.1883 of 2017 was however rejected without
27
assigning any reasons by the respondent No.2 vide
proceedings, dated 25.02.2020 (referred to and extracted
above) vide the said proceedings, dated 25.02.2020, the
petitioner had been informed that the request of the
petitioner to continue the petitioner as Physical Director
on an outsourcing basis through the 3rd party agency is
not feasible and also the payment of salary under 300
OCS is not permissible, since the petitioner’s services are
being utilized by the Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad
through CDS i.e., College Development Society.
xv) That vide G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 30.04.2023 orders
had been issued permitting the regularization of eligible
contract personnel against the sanctioned posts in terms
of the orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM.I)
Department, dated 26.02.2016 and the post of one (01)
Physical Director (Gazetted) is notified in the said
detailed G.O.ms.nO.38, dated 30.04.2023. The
Government further directed the concerned Department to
take necessary action for issuance of individual
name- wise appointment orders in terms of the proposals
submitted by them. The said G.O. also mandated the
28
Administrative departments and HoDs to ensure that the
appointments are made only against sanctioned clear
vacancies and that no senior eligible person is overlooked
or omitted and due verification of the relevant
documents/certificates was also directed.
9. This Court opines that the proceedings, dated
25.02.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 in pursuance
to the orders of this Court, dated 20.03.2019 passed in
W.P.(TR) No.1883 of 2017, is an order passed without
application of mind, in a routine mechanical manner
contrary to there own records i.e., proceedings, dated
11.12.2019 and also the G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 30.04.2023.
10. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I
appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the grant
of relief as prayed for by the petitioner mainly on the
following grounds:-
i) The petitioner is a 3rd party contract employee
ii) There is no continuity of service in respect of the
petitioner.
29
iii) There is no employer -employee relationship between
the petitioner and the respondents at any point of time,
since the date of petitioner’s appointment till on date.
iv) Once, the petitioner had accepted the terms and
conditions of the appointment, the petitioner cannot turn
back and filed the present writ petition seeking the relief
which is not part of the contract at any point of time.
v) The petitioner had not been appointed through any
constitutional or statutory recruitment process as such
the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
11. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior
designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
do not apply to the facts of the present case. The said
judgments have no relevancy since the petitioner had
been appointed through third party contract and there is
no employer-employee relationship. The petitioner was
appointed through a correspondence between the 3rd
party agency and Osmania Medical College. There was no
approval of any regular post of Physical Director at any
point of time and that no proposal had been sent to the
Government for sanction of the said post.
30
Based on the aforesaid submissions, the Learned
Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of
the respondents contended that the no relief can be
granted to the petitioner herein.
12. This Court opines that the pleas put-forth by the
Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on
behalf of the respondents that there is no approval of
regular post of Physical Director at any point of time and
that no proposal had ever been sent to the Government
for sanction of post is contrary to the contents of the
proceedings, dated 11.12.2019 of the 3rd respondent
addressed to the 2nd respondent (referred to and
extracted above) and also G.O.Ms.No.38, dated
30.04.2023 which specifically refers to the regularization
of the service of the contract personnel.
13. This Court opines that the 2nd respondent while
issuing proceedings in pursuance to the order, dated
20.03.2019 passed in W.P(TR)No.1883 of 2017, did not
take into consideration of the relevant material
correspondence exchanged between the Authorities
concerned on the subject issue. The 2nd respondent
31
mechanically rejected the request of the petitioner for
continuation of the petitioner in service for the post of
Physical Director by merely stating that the same is not
feasible. The proceedings, vide Rc.No.16153/G2/2019,
dated 25.02.2020 of the 2nd respondent are admittedly
without application of mind in a routine casual manner
and contrary to their own records.
14. This Court opines that the request of the petitioner
for grant of the prayer as sought for in the present writ
petition to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization w.e.f. petitioner’s original date of
appointment i.e., 6.02.2006 with all consequential
benefits, needs to be considered in view of the clear
observations in various Courts’ judgments (referred to
and extracted below):-
A. The judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.12.2024,
reported in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jaggo Anita and
others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant
paragraph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted
hereunder:
32
“12. Despite being labelled as “part-time
workers,” the appellants performed these
essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis
over extensive periods, ranging from over a
decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement
was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead,
it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the
responsibilities typically associated with
sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did
not engage any other personnel for these tasks
during the appellants tenure, underscoring the
indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these
were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature
of the work performed by the appellants was
perennial and fundamental to the functioning of
the offices. The recurring nature of these duties
necessitates their classification as regular posts,
irrespective of how their initial engagements were
labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent
outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies
after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the
inherent need for these services. This act of
outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of
workers with another further underscores that the work
in question was neither temporary nor occasional.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in
the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d
1187 (9th Cir. 1996)] serves as a pertinent example
from the private sector, illustrating the consequences
of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing
benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain
workers as independent contractors, thereby denying
them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were,
in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to
the same benefits as regular employees. The Court
noted that large Corporations have increasingly
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or
independent contractors as a means of avoiding
payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their
profits. This judgment underscores the principle that
the nature of the work performed, rather than the label
assigned to the worker, should determine employment
33status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It
highlights the judiciary’s role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that workers
receive fair treatment.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought
to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted
or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments.
It categorically held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly
sanctioned posts and had served continuously for
more than ten years should be considered for
regularization as a one-time measure. However,
the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted
when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately
reject the claims of employees, even in cases where
their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities. Government
departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization
exists for temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases where
regularization is appropriate. This selective
application distorts the judgment’s spirit and
purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable
services over decades.
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 on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization’s functioning, not only contravenes
international labour 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
34
follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the
appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by
the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the
original application is allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated
27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken
back on duty forthwith and their services
regularised forthwith. However, the
appellants shall not be entitled to any
pecuniary benefits/back wages for the
period they have not worked for but
would be entitled to continuity of
services for the said period and the same
would be counted for their post-
retiral benefits.”
B. The Judgment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2025
reported in 2025 INSC 144 in “SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v.
NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD“, in particular, the relevant
para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder:
“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
fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year
cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor
agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall
35the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment
practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo
v. Union of India 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 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826 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
36incremental 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.”
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.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent
they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage
37
engagement without continuity or meaningful back
wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s
services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and
Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating
their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant
Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from
the date of their termination, for all purposes, including
seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant
Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the
duties they previously performed) within four weeks from
the date of this judgment. Their entire period of
absence (from the date of termination until actual
reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of
service and all consequential benefits, such as
seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant
Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from
the date of their discontinuation until their actual
reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the
aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their
reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate
a fair and transparent process for regularizing the
Appellant Workmen within six months from the date
of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they
have performed perennial municipal duties akin to
permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the
Employer shall not impose educational or
procedural criteria retroactively if such
requirements were never applied to the Appellant
Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees
in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies
for such duties exist or are required, the
Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary
administrative processes to ensure these longtime
employees are not indefinitely retained on daily
wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are
allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam
Ghaziabad are dismissed.”
38
C. The Judgment of the Apex Court dated 19.08.2025
passed in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018 reported in 2025
SCC ONLINE SC 1735 in “Dharam Singh and Others v.
State of U.P. and Another“, in particular, the relevant para
Nos.13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are extracted hereunder:
“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 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.
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 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 “constraint” is invoked, the
39
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.
“19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the
appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties,
and the material indicating vacancies and comparator
regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary
posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect
from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed
a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh
decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the
appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor
establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection
Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the
corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and
Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any
caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant
shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular
pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages
if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the
subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay
grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from
the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant
shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the
pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the
regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the
amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until
the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case
may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim
directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be
released within three months and if in default, the unpaid
amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum
from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has
already retired shall be granted regularization with
effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause
(ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other
terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues
shall be paid within three months of this Judgment.
40
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No.
5 and any other appellant who has died during
pendency, his/her legal representatives on record
shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the
date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues
recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three
months of this Judgment.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the
Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection
Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file
an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four
months of this Judgment.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters
have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,”
and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for
those who have already laboured for years on daily wages.
Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest
on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear
duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard
and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a
sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and
implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow
these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a
conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for
these workers. The operative scheme we have set here
comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization,
subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of
compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into
outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but
obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
IndiaD. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment
dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2010 and 854
of 2012 while upholding the Judgment dated 08.09.2010
passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.No.48 of 2008
observed as under:-
41
“Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the
services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law
Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also
issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.12.1989,
11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for
regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to
be seen that Section 25-T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour
practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the
factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents
for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is
nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of
Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while
relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the
respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the
impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the
aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which,
in our considered view does not warrant interference in these
appeals.”
E. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment
dated 21.04.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2020 in 1 of 2019
and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reported in 2020(4)ALD page
379 at paras 45, 48 and para 50 observed as under:-
“45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on
daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of
service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from
the year 2000. They have been continuously working without
any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.
42
48. It is not known why the 1st respondent has not
followed the decision in Uma Devi‘s case (supra), as
explained in M.L. Kesari‘s case (supra) and 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
10.4.2006 and subject them to a process verification as to
whether they are working against vacant posts and
possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so,
regularize their services.
50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned
orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting
the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-
time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the
respondents are directed to regularize on one-time basis
petitioners’ services from the date each of the petitioners
complete 10 years of service on daily wages from the
initial dates of their appointment. But, they shall not be
entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise shall be
done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of the order.”
F. The judgment of this Court, dated 06.12.2022 passed
in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 in Manipati Lingam& Others and
in particular para Nos. 15 & 16 are extracted hereunder:-
15. A bare perusal of the observations of the Apex Court in
various judgments referred to and extracted above clearly
indicate that the claim of the petitioners for regularization has to
be necessarily considered in view of the fact that the concept of
43one time measure as explained at paras 6 to 10 of the Judgment
of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v M.L.Kesari which in
clear explicit terms said that one time exercise will be concluded
only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in
terms of para 53 of Uma Devi are so considered and the
mandate and object in Uma Devi‘s case as explained in para 53
of the said judgment, to do periodic regular recruitment of
qualified personnel for vacant posts and regularise the services
of those engaged for more than 10 years, as a one time measure
and the clarification of Uma Devi‘s case and the observation as
held at para ‘5’ of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka and Others vs. M.L.Kesari and others that Uma Devi
casts a duty upon the concerned Government and
Instrumentality to take steps to regularize ton services of those
regularly appointed employees who had served for more than
ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders
of Courts or Tribunals as a one time measure has not been
diluted and the observations in para 54(2) of the Judgement of
the Apex Court State of Punjab and Others Vs.Jagjit Singh still
hold good, which has clearly said that a legally permissible
scheme has to be framed in respect of daily wagers, ad 10c or
contractual appointees who are not appointed against sanctioned
posts, but their services are availed continuously with notional
breaks by the State Government or its instrumentality for a
sufficient long period ie., for ten years.
16. This Court is of the firm opinion that the plea of the 3’d
respondent temple that the petitioners did not satisfy the
requirement of completing five years of service as on 25.11.1993
and further that the Petitioners are not working against any
sanctioned posts and hence, they are not entitled to be
considered for regularisation as indicated in the letter of the 3rd
respondent dated 31.10.2011 and as indicated in the order
impugned of the 3rd respondent dated 06.08.2019 and also in
their counter affidavit filed before the High Court in the present
writ petition at para 13 of the counter cannot be sustained, as
per the observations of the various Apex Court judgments
referred to and extracted above, in view of the simple fact that
the petitioners are rendering their services to the 3rd respondent
temple continuously from 1992 till as on date i.e. for the last
nearly 29 years. The 3rd respondent temple cannot deny the
relief of regularization to the petitioners as per para 53 of
the decision in Umadevi‘s case, which permits one time
exercise of regularization to be done for personal
44employed on temporary basis/daily wages etc, who have
rendered continuous service for more than 10 years. The
3rd respondent temple cannot take the services of the
petitioners for years together without regularising their
services and indulge in such a practice inconsistent with
their obligation to function in accordance with the
constitution as observed by the Apex Court in Nihal Singh and
Others Vs. State of Punjab which clearly held that “sanctioned
posts do not fall from heaven” and the State has to create them
by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment
of the need.
The aforesaid judgment had been upheld by the Apex
Court.
G. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed
in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 which pertains to regularization
of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple,
Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by
the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023
dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex
Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.
H. The judgment of this Court reported in AIRONLINE
2022 TEL 242, dated 15.11.2022 in M.Anjaiah Vs. Director,
Telugu Academy, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and in
particular para Nos.18 & 21 are extracted hereunder:-
18. This Court opines that the engagement of the persons like
the petitioners through outsourcing agencies/ intermediaries for
more than 15 years after the decision in Uma Devi, without
undertaking any exercise to identify regularly the vacancies in
the above posts in the Respondent Academy i.e., Telugu
45Academy, Himayathnagar, and fill them up as per the applicable
rules by properly qualified personnel, and engaging persons of
“outsourcing” basis through intermediaries/contractors, is in
violation of the law laid down in Uma Devi‘s case by the
respondents and it also violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
21. Taking into consideration the contention of the Respondent
that the Respondent organization has been bifurcated on
26.04.2022, the Respondents while continuously engaging the
services of the petitioners directly henceforth, are directed to
consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their
services in the posts whose work they are discharging now, by
ignoring the existence of the intermediaries/
agencies/contractors in the said posts of Hamalis divided into 3
categories namely skilled, semi-skilled and un-skilled in the light
of the judgments of the Apex Court referred to and discussed
above and which were followed in subsequent cases by this
Court within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of
the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law and
communicate the decision to the Petitioners.
The aforesaid judgment also attained its finality,
since petitioners in the said writ petition had been
regulairzed in pursuance to the orders of the Court.
I. The relevant portion of the judgment of this Court,
reported in 2023(1) ALD 259 (TS), dated 08.08.2022 in
Durgam Rajender Vs. A.P.State Handloom Weaver‘s Co-
operative Society Ltd., Hyderabad and Others is extracted
hereunder:-
It is clear as from the facts of the present case referred to above
that the termination of the petitioner was ultimately held to be
illegal and the petitioner was reinstated into service on
01.06.1992 with continuity of service and with attendant benefits
46duly setting aside the order of removal dated 20.05.1988 as per
the order of the Industrial Tribunal. There is also a clear
admission at paras 11 and 12 in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents that the services of Kumari M.Kalavathi and Sri
G.S.Anna Rao are regularized in the year 2009 as per Court
orders. Hence, there is no denial to the Fact that the services of
juniors of the petitioner have been considered for regularization.
In such an event, the respondents are under obligation to
consider the case of the petitioner for regularization because
the law laid down by the Apex court in Umadevi‘s case
refers to regularization of services of daily wage/ad
hoc/casual employee’s as well.
12. In view of the law laid down in the judgments referred to and
discussed above i.e.M.L.Kesari and others, case referred 1st
supra, Umadevi‘s case referred 2nd supra and the order dated
,13.02.2015 passed in W.A.No.108 of 2015, the writ petition is
allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize to
regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the ratio laid
down it the aforesaid decision within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no
order as to costs.
J. The judgment of this Court, reported in 2018(2) ALD
282(DB), dated 19.09.2017 in U.V.S.R. Prasad and Others
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another and in particular
para nos.9, 10 & 16 are extracted hereunder:-
9. We have carefully considered the respective submissions of
the learned Counsel for the parties.
10. From the material discussed above and the admissions made
in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2, it is not in dispute
that the petitioners have been working as Work Inspectors from
the years 1990 – 1992. It is also not in dispute that by the time
the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra) was rendered in the year
1996, they have completed more than 10 years of service. Para
53 of the Judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra) reads as under:
“One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
47irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in
S.V.Narayanappa (1967 (1) SCR 128), R.N.Nanjundappa (1972
(1) SCC 409) and B.N.Nagarajan (1979 (4) SCC 507) 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 but
without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals.
The question of regularization 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 regularize as a one-time measure, 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.”
16. 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 (1 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 denouncing the practice of
regularization and absorption of persons, who entered service
through backdoors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure
prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered
for onetime absorption/ regularization of those, who 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. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra).
But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States
whee State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist.
Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.ms.No.212, dated
22.04.1994, do not whittle down the width and the
judgment in Manjula Bashini (2supra) does not lower the
trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court
in para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). It is,
48
therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take
shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dated
22.04.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioner, who
have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in para
No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 Supra).
K. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017,
in OA 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 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‘s case (supra). This process must be completed
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.”
L. The Division Bench judgment, dated 05.11.2024 passed
in W.A.No.1324 of 2024 in The State of Telangana &
another Vs. B.Sreedevi and in particular para No.7 is
extracted hereunder:-
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the learned
Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition in favour of the
respondent. If the respondent has not fulfilled the conditions
stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.221, dated 20.06.1995, the appellants
ought to have disengaged the services of the respondent, but
having continued the respondent for 32 long years, the
appellants ought not to have denied regularization to the
49respondent. Further, this Court granted interim direction on
13.10.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.38880 of 2018
directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent
for regularization of her services. Without assigning any
reasons, the appellants have rejected the case of the
respondent in a single line order dated 22.06.2019. When
once the Court directs the appellants to consider the case
of the respondent, and if the appellants reject the same,
then the Courts can give positive Mandamus. This issue
was considered by the Apex Court in State of Mysore v.
Syed Mahmood Alf Therefore, learned Single Judge was
justified in directing the appellants to regularize the
services of the respondent as Part time-Lecturer and
extend all consequential benefits. We are also not
appreciating the fact that the writ appeal is filed only after the
respondent has attained the age of superannuation as Part-time
Lecturer with a delay of more than 366 days.
7.1 Further, a perusal of the rejection order passed by the
appellant on 22.06.2019 discloses that the issue of aided
and un-aided services was discussed. Aided and un-aided
services would apply only to private educational
institutions but not to Government institutions. The
manner in which the case of the respondent was rejected
shows total non-application of mind and the same is liable
to be rejected as admittedly the respondent is working in
a Government institution. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition in favour
of the respondent and this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the same.
15. In so far as the plea of the Government Pleader for
Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents that
this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner herein
in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court,
dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.10744, 11643, 13223
&14300 of 2023 and W.P.(TR) No.5972 of 2017 and the
50
specific orders of the Apex Court in the appeal preferred
by the Government on the said order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court directing the status-quo
maintained is not tenable and the said plea is rejected, in
view of the view and law laid down by the Apex Court
judgment, dated 17.08.2023 reported in AIRONLINE 2023
SC 702 in Secunderabad Club ETC. Vs. CIT.-V. ETC.
(referred to and extracted below) and in the judgment of
the Apex Court reported in (2023) 16 SCC 458 (referred to
and extracted below)in Career Institute Educational
Society Vs. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society and in
particular para Nos.6 and 7 are extracted hereunder:-
6. The first judgment in State of Gujarat Vs. Utility Users
Welfare Association reported in 2018 (6) SCC Page 21 applies,
what is called, “the inversion test” to identify what is ratio
decidendi in a judgment. To test whether a particular proposition
of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of the case, the
proposition is to be inversed, i.e. to remove from the text of the
judgment as if it did not exist. If the conclusion of the case
would still have been the same even without examining the
proposition, then it cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of
the case.
7. In Jayant Verma Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 (4)
SCC Page 743, this Court has referred to an earlier decision of
this Court in Dalbir Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in
1979 (3) SCC Page 745 to state that it is not the findings of
material facts, direct and inferential, but the statements of the
principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the
facts, which is the vital element in the decision and operates as a
precedent, albeit operates as res judicata. Even the conclusion
51does not operate as a precedent. Thus, it is not everything said
by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent.
The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding as a legal precedent
is the principle upon which the case is decided and, for this
reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it
the obiter dicta.
16. In the judgment of the Apex Court reported in
AIRONLINE 2023 SC 702, dated 17.08.2023 in
Secunderabad Club ETC Vs. CIT -V E.T.C. and in particular
para Nos.13, 16 & 22 are extracted hereunder:-
13. It is a settled position of law that only the ratio decidendi of
a judgment is binding as a precedent. In B. Shama Rao vs. Union
Territory of Pondicherry, AIR 1967 SC 1480, it has been
observed that a decision is binding not because of its conclusion
but with regard to its ratio and the principle laid down therein. In
this context, reference could also be made to Quinn vs. Leathem,
1901 AC 495 (HL), wherein it was observed that every judgment
must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or
assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions
which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of
the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts
of the case in which such expressions are found. In other words,
a case is only an authority for what it actually decides.
16. The legal principles guiding the decision in a case is the basis
for a binding precedent for a subsequent case, apart from being
a decision which binds the parties to the case. Thus, the principle
underlying the decision would be binding as a precedent for a
subsequent case. Therefore, while applying a decision to a later
case, the court dealing with it has to carefully ascertain the
principle laid down in the previous decision. A decision in a case
takes its flavour from the facts of the case and the question of
law involved and decided. However, a decision which is not
express and is neither founded on any reason nor
proceeds on a consideration of the issue cannot be
deemed to be law declared, so as to have a binding effect
as is contemplated under Article 141, vide State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC
139. Article 141 of the Constitution states that the law
52declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the
courts within the territory of India. All courts in India,
therefore, are bound to follow the decisions of Supreme
Court. This principle is an aspect of judicial discipline.
22. Further, the precedential value of an order of the
Supreme Court which is not preceded by a detailed
judgment would be lacking inasmuch as an issue would
not have been categorically dealt with. What is of essence
in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found
therein, nor what logically follows from the various
observations made therein.
17. It is pertinent to refer and bring on record the
details of the recent judgment, dated 13.02.2026 of the
Division Bench of Apex Court reported in AIR 2026
Supreme Court 997 in Pawan Kumar and Others Vs. Union
of India and Others, referring in particular to the
judgments of the Apex Court in Ravi Verma and Others
reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 1606 as well as in Raman
Kumar and Others reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 854
which directed for regularization of services of the
appellants there under from 01.07.2006 on the same
terms as made applicable in Ravivarma and Others as well
as in Raman Kumar and Others and further directed for
release of benefits to the appellants there under within a
period of three months from the date of the said order.
The Apex Court further specifically placed reliance on para
53
Nos.13,20 & 21 of Jagoo case reported in AIR 2025 SC
Page 296 while passing the said order.
It is the specific case of the appellant there under that
they had been engaged as Casual Workers, the appellant
Nos.1 to 3 came to the engaged as causal workers on the
post of Sweeper from 01.10.1997, 01.05.1998 and
01.10.1997 respectively. Appellant No.4 was casually
engaged as Cook from 27.12.1993 and their names had
been sponsored from employment exchange and after
being duly interviewed they were engaged as daily
workers.
It is further specific case of the appellants there
under that services of the appellants are liable to be
regularized as they are similarly situated as other daily
wage workers in the Income Tax Department whose
services have been regularized pursuant to various orders
passed by this Court. The Apex Court allowed the said
Appeal in favour of the appellants there under vide its
judgment, dated 13.02.2026 very clearly observing that
appellants had been working continuously as daily wage
workers from 2005 and the Income Tax Department could
not have discriminated in matter of regularizing services
54
of similarly situated employees. The Apex Court observed
that services of appellants were liable to regularized as
they were similarly situated as other daily wage workers
whose services had been regularized pursuant to various
orders passed by Supreme Court.
The principle laid down by the Apex Court in all the
aforesaid judgments apply to the facts of the present case
as well since it is borne on record vide letters, dated
14.12.2012, 12.03.2013, 19.05.2015, 11.12.2019,
G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 30.04.2023 that efforts had been
made by the official respondents herein for regularization
of eligible contract personnel. Hence, this Court opines
that petitioner is entitled for consideration of petitioner’s
case for regularization of petitioner’s services with effect
from the date of petitioner’s initial appointment i.e.,
16.12.2006.
18. Taking into consideration:-
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.
b) The submissions put-forth by the learned senior
designated counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader for
Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.
55
c) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.
d) The order, dated 20.03.2019 passed in
W.P.(TR)No.1883 of 2017
e) The contents of the speaking order, vide
Rc.No.16153/G2/2019, dated 25.02.2020 issued by the
Director of Medical Education, Telangana State,
Hyderabad, in pursuance to the directions of this Court,
dated 20.03.2019 passed in W.P(TR).No.1883 of 2017
(referred to and extracted above)
f) The contents of G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 30.04.2023
issued by the Government of Telangana (referred to
and extracted above)
g) The contents of the various letters, dated 20.06.2009,
19.05.2015 ,25.02.2020, 30.12.2006, 14.12.2012 &
11.12.2019 (referred to and extracted above)
h) The observations of the various Courts in the various
judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again
enlisted below:
(i) 2025 INSC 144
(ii) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209
(iii) AIRONLINE 2023 SC 702
(iv) (2023) 16 SCC 458
(v) AIRONLINE 2022 TEL 242
56
(vi) 2023(1) ALD 259 (TS)
(vii) 2018(2) ALD 282 (DB)
(viii) SCC ONLINE SC 1735
(ix) AIR 2026 SC 997
(x) The judgment of this Court, dated 06.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019
(xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024
(i) The Division Bench order of this Court dated
25.11.2024 passed in W.A.No.1324 of 2024, dated
25.11.2024.
(j) The Division Bench order of this Court dated
10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2010 and 854 of
2012 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010
passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.No.48 of 2008
k) The Division Bench order of this Court dated
21.04.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2020 in 1 of 2019
and W.P.No.23057 of 2019
l) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at
paragraph Nos. 5 to 17 of this order,
The present writ petition is allowed as prayed for.
This Court opines that the subject issue pertaining to the
request of the petitioner for consideration of petitioner’s
57
case for regularization w.e.f. the date of petitioner’s
original date of appointment i.e., 16.12.2006 with all
consequential benefits needs to be considered by the
Director of Medical Education, Telangana State,
Hyderabad i.e., respondent No.2, without reference to the
speaking order, dated 25.02.2020 issued by the Director
of Medical Education i.e., the 2nd respondent rejecting
petitioner’s request to continue the petitioner in service in
the post of Physical Director. The respondent Nos.2 and 3
are directed to reconsider the subject issue, pertaining to
consideration of petitioner’s case for regularization w.e.f.
petitioner’s original date of appointment i.e., 16.12.2006,
in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of
natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner herein, duly taking into
consideration the latest law laid down by the Apex Court
in the various judgments (referred to and extracted
above), duly examining the relevant material documents
in support of petitioner’s claim and the various
correspondence vide letters, dated 16.12.2006,
24.01.2007, 30.04.2007, 15.06.2007, 11.05.2008,
07.07.2008,25.09.2008, 04.10.2008, 14.12.2012,
58
19.05.2015, G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 30.04.2023, 12,03,2013,
10.06.2015 & 11.12.2019 that took place pertaining the
subject issue between the official respondents herein and
pass appropriate orders, within a period four (04) weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of the order and duly
communicate the decision to the petitioner. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
________________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date:08.06.2026
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked
Issue CC by today
(B/o) ktm
[ad_1]
Source link
