2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v.

State of Telangana TEL 271

2023-I-LLJ-271 (TEL)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Present:
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Surepalli Nanda
W.P.No. 39928 of 2017 9th December, 2022

D. Uppalaiah and Others ... Petitioners

Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary and Others
... Respondents

Employment – Regularization of Service – Petitioner-employee sought for

setting aside action of Respondents in issuing proceedings in not regularized
service of Petitioners, as illegal, and to direct Respondent 1 to regularize
service of Petitioners, hence this petition – Whether, Petitioners entitled for
regularization of their services in accordance to law – Held, Respondents
could not deny relief of regularization to Petitioners, since as per specified
decision one time exercise of regularization had to be done for personnel
employed on temporary basis-daily wages etc, who have rendered continuous
service for more than 10 years – Respondents could not take services of
Petitioners for years together without regularizing their services and indulge
in such practice inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance
with constitution – Impugned orders, set aside – Respondents while continu-
ously engaging services of Petitioners directed to consider case of Petitioners
for regularization of their services in accordance to law – Petition allowed.

Held: The respondents herein 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 employed on temporary
basis/daily wages etc, who have rendered continuous service for more than 10 years.
The respondents herein 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 v. 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.
[Para 26]

CASES CITED/REFERRED TO:

Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar LNIND 2015 SC 163
[Paras 10(C)]

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 51

272 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

B. Srinivalusu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Nellore

District, Andhra Pradesh 2015 SCC Online SC 1797
[Para 10(B)]
District Collector/Chairperson v. M.L. Singh (2009) 8 SCC 480
[Para 8]
Hussain Bhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union 1978-II-LLJ-397 (Considered)
[Para 9]
Marathwada Agricultural University v. Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith M.S.K.S (2007) 8
SCC 497 (Considered) [Para 3(f)]
Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab LNIND 2013 SC 756 (Followed)
[Paras 5, 26]
State of Jarkhand v. Kamal Prasad LNIND 2014 SC 154
[Para 10(D)]
State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari 2010-IV-LLJ-583 (Considered)
[Paras 8, 25]
State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Followed)
[Paras 7, 22, 23, 25, 26]
State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh LNIND 2016 SC 552 (Considered)
[Paras 6, 25]
ADVOCATES APPEARED:
Chikkudu Prabhakar, for Petitioners
G.P. for Services II, for Respondents

ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for
Services II and learned standing counsel for respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing
the Proceedings No. 37/CPR&RE/C2/2015, dated 27.10.2015 in not regularized the
service of the Petitioners as regularized the service of the one of the members of
the union Md. Masood Ali, Bore-well Mechanic, working on the basis of NMR at
both, Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No. 182, dated 14.03.2017 as illegal,
arbitrary, highly discriminatory, unjust, unfair, irrational, unconstitutional, unlaw-
ful and against to Articles 12, 14, 16, 19, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India
and against to the principles of natural justice and against to the G.O.Ms.No. 212,
Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994 and against to a catena of Judgments of the
Apex Court and set aside the same, Consequently direct the 1st respondent to
regularize the service of the petitioners as regularized the service of the colleague
of the Petitioners Sri Md. Masood Ahmed, Bore well Mechanic working on the
basis of NMR basis at both Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No. 182, dated
14.03.2017.

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 52

2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v. State of Telangana TEL 273

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioners, having completed their Technical Qualification (I.T.I) were
appointed through various proceedings by Respondents 10 to 14 as Bore well
mechanic.
b) Despite petitioners providing better services and working hard, they were
neither paid lawful wages nor were they absorbed and regularized by Respondents.
c) Many representations were made to the respondents to pay lawful salary to
the petitioner, but no action was taken by the respondents.
d) Despite being appointed as Bore Well Mechanics on N.M.R basis few decades
ago, they were neither absorbed nor paid lawful salary for the past 2 (Two) decades.
e) Subsequently, W.P.No. 14145 of 2016 was filed against the respondents for
not considering the representations of Borewell Mechanics Union of the State and
the High Court had passed orders on 25.04.2016 directing the respondents to
consider the representation of Borewell Mechanics Union of the State and pass
appropriate orders within Eight Weeks. As no orders were passed, Contempt Case
No. 1908 of 2016 has been filed. After filing of said contempt case, the respondents
passed orders without considering the quantum of law, vide proceedings No.
37/CPR&RE/C2/2015 dated 27.10.2016. Instead of regularizing all the members
in service, only one Mr. Sri Masood Ali, has been regularized in the service through
G.O.Rt.No. 182 dated 14.03.2017. They are highly discriminated against by the
Petitioners and even though their Qualification, Nature of Work, Duties and
Responsibilities are similar between N.M.R and Regularized employee, they were
not regularized and issued Proceeding No. 37/CRP&RE/C2/2015 dated 27.10.2016
and the same is against the Constitution of India.
f) The question of Daily wages or Contract Employees is not the question here.
When there are similar work and same working conditions, they are entitled to
Equal Remuneration for Equal Work and same has been held by the Apex Court
in Marathwada Agricultural University and Others v. Marathwada Krishi
Vidyapith M.S.K.S and Other (2007) 8 SCC 497 and in State of Punjab v. Jagjit
Singh and Others (C.A.No. 213 of 2013 and it’s batch), dated 26.10.2016. Hence,
this Writ Petition is filed.
4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondents, in brief, is as follows:
a) The Hand Pump mechanics were engaged as per need by the Concerned
Mandal Parishad Development Officers on piece work basis and they are not termed
as NMR/Contract employees. There is no individual contract between the employer
and employee in writing and even if there is any such contract, the same will
become invalid as and when the work is complete.
b) They were working under a scheme which had no future and their payment
was from the fund available under the Fund available in the scheme and in some
cases wages are being paid through 3rd party. They were paid for the said piece

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 53

274 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

of work done by them. On basis of assessment of RWS authorities and the

petitioners were not appointed on regular or contract basis. They were engaged
whenever hand pumps are required and when the petitioners do not work for the
whole day, paying of fixed pay does not arise.
c) As per G.O.Ms.No. 498 PR&RD (Samithi. III) Dept. dated 12.10.1999, there
are no part time or full time hand pump mechanic post in sanctioned posts. The
Scheme of maintenance of the hand pumps and the 100% grants are issued
exclusively to Gram Panchayats according to 14 the Finance Commission
recommendations and the petitioners were being directly by Gram Panchayats That
the services of Sri Md. Masood Ahmad were regularized on the proposals submitted
by Engineer-in-chief, RWS&S and not by the Commissioner. Sri Md. Masood
Ahmad was regularized against the post of BPO/Tracer and the posts of BPO/Tracer
were not available in the Gram Panchayats or Mandal Parishads. The regularization
of the petitioners cannot be done as there is no sanctioned post of Bore well
mechanic in Mandal Praja Parishad at all.
d) The petitioners are not eligible for regularization under G.O.Ms.No 212, dated
22.04.1994 or G.O.Ms.No112, dated 23.07.1997 since they were working on daily
wages either full time or part time and they were appointed by any authority. They
were only used wherever and whenever their services were required for mainte-
nance of bore well in Mandal and paid on per piece basis. Hence, their services
cannot be regularized.
e) They were earlier paid from the funds allocated for the maintenance of hand
pumps from the grants of XIII Finance Commission and no specific grant or funds
are provided for their payment. Since, the scheme of maintenance of the hand
pumps and the grants are issued to Gram Panchayat according to XIV Finance
Commission vide proceedings No. A2/4855/2016 dated 09.01.2016, the payments
for the works done by the Petitioners are being paid from the funds of XIV Finance
Commission.
f) The impugned orders were passed by the 3rd respondent, considering all
aspects of petitioners to the representations made by the petitioners and orders in
W.P.No. 14145 of 2016 dated 10.03.2016 of the High Court. Hence, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
PERUSED THE RECORD
RELEVANT CASE LAW ON REGULARIZATION:
5. In the judgement of the Apex Court in Nihal Singh and Others v. State of
Punjab LNIND 2013 SC 756 : (2013) 14 SCC 65 : AIR 2013 SC 3547, the Supreme
Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the
State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made
available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render
the appellants ‘employees’ of those Banks since the appointment was made by the
State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 54

2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v. State of Telangana TEL 275

cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority
of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make
appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It
also refused to accept the defence that there were no sanctioned posts and so there
was justification for the State to utilise services of large number of people like the
appellants for decades. It held that “sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven” and
that the State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational
assessment of need. Referring to Umadevi, it held that the appellants before them
were not arbitrarily chosen, their initial appointment was not an ‘irregular’
appointment as it had been made in accordance with the statutory procedure
prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to say that
they are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis
as, according to it, their appointments were purely temporary and not against any
sanctioned posts created by the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi
cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities and
neither the Government of Punjab nor those public sector Banks can continue such
a practice consistent with their obligation to function in accordance with the
Constitution.
6. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit
Singh and Others LNIND 2016 SC 552 : (2017) 1 SCC 148 : AIR 2016 SC 5176,
at Paras 54 (1)(2)(3) of the said judgment observed as under:
“54 “The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above
controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the
minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason, that the activities
carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench
however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the
two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale
drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the
High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular
sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon
fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be
entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against
regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with
notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient
long period i.e., for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees
shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on
the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for
such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons.
Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to be considered separately in
terms of legally permissible scheme.

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 55

276 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three
years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily
wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period
of three years and two months.”
7. In State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 the Supreme Court has
held as under:
Any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme and a
sovereign Government, considering the economic situation in the country and
the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments
or engaging workers on daily wages.
It declared that a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted
to when regular vacancies in posts at a particular point of time are to be filled
up and filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or
based on patronage or other considerations. It is also declared that regular
appointments must be the rule.
It then went on to hold that it is ordinarily not proper for the Courts whether
acting under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Article 32 of the
Constitution, to direct absorption in permanent employment of those who have
been engaged without following due process of selection as envisaged by the
constitutional scheme. It held that there is only limited role of equity in such
matters and otherwise it would result in perpetuating illegalities and in the
jettisoning of the scheme of public employment adopted in the country.
It held that in situations where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments)
of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts are made, and all the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more, but without the
intervention of orders of Courts or of Tribunals, their claim for regularization
of services have to be considered on merits.
It directed that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumen-
talities should take steps for regularization, as a one-time measure, the services
of such irregularly appointed persons who have worked for ten (10) years or
more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of Courts or of
Tribunals.
It also directed that Court should ensure that regular appointments are undertaken
to fill those vacant sanctioned posts.
It directed the said process to be set in motion within six (06) months from the
date of pronouncement of its order in Uma Devi i.e., 10.04.2006.
8. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in between: State of Karnataka and
Others v. M.L. Kesari and Others, 2010-IV-LLJ-583 : LNIND 2010 SC 96 : (2010)
9 SCC 247 : AIR 2010 SC 2587 in particular, paras 4 to 9 reads as under:
4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006
(reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 56

2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v. State of Telangana TEL 277

held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules
relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts
cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re-engagement nor make their
service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,
regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done
in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts
must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic
arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves
to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory
mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a
daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless
he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the
above position and the same is extracted below :
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
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 abovereferred 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. ....
“5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles
against ‘regularization’ enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are
fulfilled :
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly
sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court
or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should
have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular.
Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 57

278 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifi-
cations, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person
employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against
sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open
competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.
(iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality,
to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly 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. Umadevi, directed
that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the
date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006).
6. The term ‘one-time measure’ has to be understood in its proper perspective.
This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department
or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list
of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more
than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them
to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and
possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.
7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several
daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Conse-
quently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the
one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government depart-
ments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several
employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending
in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who
were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi,
will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the
onetime exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the
six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time
exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in
10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection
of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the
one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases
of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the
employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the
onetime exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the
employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi,
are so considered.
8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two-fold. First
is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service
without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date
of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 58

2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v. State of Telangana TEL 279

of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities

do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/adhoc/ casual
for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they
have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or
statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment.
9. The Supreme Court in a judgment in Hussain Bhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali
Union 1978-II-LLJ-397 : LNIND 1978 SC 174 : (1978) 4 SCC 257 : AIR 1978
SC 1410 observed as follows :
In that case, the petitioner before the Supreme Court was a factory owner
manufacturing ropes. A number of workmen were engaged to make ropes from
within the factory, but these workmen, according to the petitioner, were hired
by contractors who had executed agreements with the petitioner to get such work
done. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the workmen were not his
workmen but the contractors’ workmen.
The industrial award, made on a reference by the State Government, was attacked
on this ground.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in an elaborate judgment, rightly
held that the petitioner was the employer and the members of the respondent-
Union were employees under the petitioner. A Division Bench upheld this stand
and the petitioner has sought special leave from this Court.
While refusing leave and dismissing the SLP the Court held that mere contracts
are not decisive and the complex of considerations relevant to the relationship
is different; and that where a worker or group of workers labours to produce
goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that
other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers’
subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off,
the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with
whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contract is of
no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors
governing employment, we discern, though draped in different perfect paper
arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate
contractor. The Court explained :
“mere contracts are not decisive and the complex of considerations relevant to
the relationship is different. Indian Justice, beyond Atlantic liberalism, has a rule
of law which runs to the aid of the Rule of life. And life, in conditions of poverty
aplenty, is livelihood, and livelihood is work with wages. Raw societal realities,
not fine-spun legal niceties, not competitive market economics but complex
protective principles, shape the law when the weaker, working class sector needs
succour for livelihood through labour. The conceptual confusion between the
classical law of contracts and the special branch of law sensitive to exploitative
situations accounts for the submission that the High Court is in error in its holding
against the petitioner.

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 59

280 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

The true test may with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group
qf workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are
for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic
control over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he,
for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of
intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct
relationship ex contract is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking
at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth,
though in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the
Management. not the immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold
after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type
of industry, the local condition and the like may be restored to when labour
legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Articles 38,
39, 42, 43 and 43-A of the Constitution. The court must be astute to avoid the
mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the mischief
of legal appearances.
If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to
produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise, the
absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the
make believe trappings of detachment from the Management cannot snap the real
life-bond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability
cannot be shaken off.”
10. In a similar identical factual situation workers employed through out
sourcing by GHMC approached this Court by filing WP No. 47675/2018.
(A) In G. Srinivasa Chary, Petitioner v. State of Telangana in IA No. 1/2019 in
WP No. 47675/2018 vide its order dated 07.08.2020 was pleased to observe as
follows :
“In the result,
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed;
(b) the respondents’ action in engaging the petitioners on “outsourcing basis”
as Sanitary Supervisors (SFA), Sanitation Workers, Entomology Field Workers,
Entomology Superior Field Workers, Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field Assis-
tants through intermediaries/agencies/contractors is contrary to law, violative of
Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the law declared by
the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (1 supra) mandating periodic regular
recruitment to sanctioned posts;
(c) that the “outsourcing” system adopted by the GHMC is only a sham and a
ruse to avoid extending to the petitioners their genuine service entitlements; and
that the presence of such intermediary/contractor has to be ignored, and the
petitioners are held to have been directly engaged by the GHMC and they are
also held entitled to be considered for regularisation of their services;

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 60

2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v. State of Telangana TEL 281

(d) consequently, 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, by ignoring the existence of the
intermediaries/ agencies/contractors in the posts of Sanitary Supervisor (SFA),
Sanitation Workers, Entomology Field Workers, Entomology Superior Field
Workers, Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field Assistants within two (2) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
(e) the petitioners are entitled to minimum of time scale of pay attached to the
posts of Sanitary Supervisor (SFA), Sanitation Workers, Entomology Field
Workers, Entomology Superior Field Workers, Supervisors (EFA), Superior
Field Assistants in which they are now discharging their functions till their claim
for regularisation is considered by the GHMC in accordance with para 53 of the
decision in Uma Devi (1 supra); and such payments shall be made by the GHMC
directly to the petitioners w.e.f the date of filing of this Writ petition (after
deducting the payments already received by them during this period from the
contractor/intermediary) and shall be continued till the cases of the petitioners
are considered for regularisation by the GHMC. The arrears upto 31.7.2020 shall
be paid on or before 15.9.2020.
(c) I.A.No. 1 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.
B) The judgment of the Apex Court reported in between B. Srinivalusu and
Others v. Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Nellore
District, Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 in particular paras
7 and 8 reads as under:
(7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The
right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O.No. 212 dated
22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only
prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O.
till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the
G.O. 212 (supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite
for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and
continued to extract work from the appellants.
8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the
ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is
not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order
under appeal by directing that the appellants’ services be regularised with effect
from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid
down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson and Others v. M.L. Singh
and Others (2009) 8 SCC 480.
C) In Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar LNIND 2015 SC 163 : (2015) 8 SCC 265,
the Supreme Court held that ‘The objective behind the exception carved out in this
case was to permit regularisation and to ensure appointments, which are irregular
but not illegal, and to ensure security of employment of those persons who had

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 61

282 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten years”.
In that case, employee was working for 29 years. This decision approves earlier
view expressed in M.L. Kesari extracted above.
D) In State of Jarkhand v. Kamal Prasad LNIND 2014 SC 154 : (2014) 7 SCC
223, similar view was taken by the Supreme Court and it was held as follows :
“41…. In view of the categorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue
that the respondent employees have continued in their service for more than 10
years continuously therefore, the legal principle laid down by this Court in
Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
73) at para 53 squarely applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the
High Court has rightly held that the respondent employees are entitled for the
relief, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court.”
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12th August, 1992 in Civil
Appeal No. 2979 of 1992 and batch have also observed to evolve an appropriate
policy for regularization and an effort and endeavour should be undertaken by the
Government to regularise as many NMR/daily wage employees as possible, who
are otherwise qualified depending of on the requirement of the work load duly
keeping in mind the hardship that would be caused, if their services are not
regularised.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
12. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are appointed as bore well
mechanics in respective Mandals i.e., the 9th to 23rd respondents herein. The 1st
petitioner had been appointed in the year 1998, the 2nd petitioner appointed in the
year 1993, the 3rd petitioner was appointed in the year 1999, the 4th petitioner was
appointed in the year 2007, the 5th petitioner was appointed in the year 2001, the
6th petitioner was appointed in the year 2003, the 7th petitioner was appointed in
the year 2003, the 8th petitioner was appointed in the year 1995, the 9th petitioner
was appointed in the year 1995, the 10th petitioner was appointed in the year 1994,
the 11th petitioner was appointed in the year 1999, the 12th petitioner was
appointed in the year 1995, the 13th petitioner was appointed in the year 1995, the
14th petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 and the 15th petitioner was appointed
in the year 1993 respectively.
13. The petitioners as material documents have also filed service certificates
issued to the petitioners by the 9th to 23rd respondents. The plea of the petitioners
is that they have rendered services continuously to the 9th to 23rd respondents
herein for the last more than 15 years, but, however, inspite of working
continuously for several years and rendering services perennial in nature, the
services of the petitioners had not been regularized.
14. ORDER impugned in the present W.P.No. 35664 of 2017 dated 27.10.2016
in proceedings No. 37/CPR and RE /C2/2015 reads as under:

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 62

2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v. State of Telangana TEL 283

In the reference 1 read above, the Government have requested the ENC, RWS&S
and Director, PR&RE to hold a joint meeting and problems of Pump Mechanics
working in MPPS on contract basis and furnish the recommendations for taking
further action in the matter.
In this office letter 2nd cited, the ENC, RWS was requested to furnish specific
recommendations on the problems of Pump Mechanics. But the Engineer-in-
Chief, RWS Department informed that they does not deal with pump mechanics
as they have been paid by MPDO.
In the reference 3rd cited, the President RWS Pump Mechanics, Contract
Employees and workers union requested to consider the judgment of Hon’ble
High Court Judicature in W.P.No. 14145/2016 to pay lawful salary and to
regularize them in service.
The Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 14145/2016 filed by Sri E. Prathap,
President, RWS Pump Mechanics, Contract Employees and workers union,
issued orders on 25.04.2016 “that the W.P is disposed of, without expressing any
opinion on the merits and demerits of the matter, directing the 2nd (Govt.) and
3rd (CPR&RE) respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the
representation, dated 10.03.2016 said to have been submitted by the petitioner
herein, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order”.
The president RWS Pump Mechanics, Contract Employees and workers union
in their representation dt:10.03.2016 informed that the Hon’ble Chief Minister
is regularising all contract employees In Telangana State and requested to
regularize their services.
In the reference 4th read above, instructions were issued to all the District
Panchayat Officers and Chief Executive Officers for payment of wages to Bore
well mechanics from 14th Finance G.P fund under the supervision of MPDO
whenever the bore well repairs are being taken up by these Pump Mechanics in
Gram Panchayats jurisdiction.
The pump mechanics were earlier being utilized by MPDOs to carry out repairs
of drinking water bore wells in the Gram Panchayats. They were paid from the
funds received under 13th Finance Commission for drinking water schemes
repairs. They were out sourced as per need basis and not termed as contract
employees. Keeping in view of this the request of regularizing their services is
not considered.
In view of the above position and also as per the directions of the Hon’ble APHC
the representation dt: 10.03.2015 of President RWS Pump Mechanics, Contract
Employees and workers union is considered and discussed in terms of existing
rules and rejected.
The CEO, ZPP, Warangal is directed to communicate the same to the individual
concerned and acknowledge the same.”

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 63

284 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

15. The material documents filed by the petitioners refers to proceedings

No.B/ages/Pump Mechanic, 2007, dated 11.07.2017 by the Mandal Parishad
Department, initially MPP, Bhopalapally and the said proceedings read as under:
“Through re 1st, 2nd and 3rd cited, the commissioner PR & RD Telangana state
has issued circular stating that the pump mechanic wages are being paid from
the mandal Parishad 13th/14th finance grants, at present due to not releasing the
TFC/FFC grants it is not possible to pay the pump mechanic wages in the
TFC/FFC grant are being releasing directly to Gram Panchyat. Hence, issued
instructions to pay the wages from the Gram Panchayats TFC/FFC grants on
rotation basis.
Through ref 4th cited, the CEO, ZPP Warangal has issued directions to pay the
pump mechanic wages as per SSR is Rs. 506/- per day for skilled labour and
Rs.506/- per day for semiskilled labour.
In view of the above, it is decided to pay the wages of pump mechanic from the
Gram Panchayats 14th grants as per population basis as the 14th grant is being
released as per population basis. And the wages to pump mechanic is fixed per
Rs. 506/- per day, as the present working pump mechanic is semiskilled labour.
As per the population basis the one year wages for March, 2017 to February,
2018 (12) months average 28 years per month comes to Rs. 170016/- this amount
divided to the all G.Ps as per population as follows:
Sl.No. Name of the Gram Population Amount
Panchayat
1. Neredpally 12324 13340
2. Gorlaveedu 4581 26290
3. Gudapally 1287 7380
4. Kothapally (SM) 1343 7700
5. Moranchapally 1617 9280
6. Kompally 2320 13300
7. Kamalapur 2444 14020
8. Rampur 1068 6366
9. Pambapur 1478 8480
10. Nagaram 3081 17690
11. Azamnagar 2767 15880
12. Nandigama 1099 6300
13. Deekshakunta 1187 6310
14. Dudekulapally 929 5330
15. Golla Budharam 2066 11860
Total 29591 170016
All the Sarpanch and Panchayath Secretaries are requested to adjust the amounts
to the following A/c immediately from the 14th finance grants of G.Ps of the
further A/c for payment of wages to the pump mechanic for 3/2017 to 2/2018.

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 64

2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v. State of Telangana TEL 285

A/c No. 52173975473 – SBI(H) BPLP A/C holder Mandal Parishad Develop-
ment Officer Mandala Praja Parishad, Bhupalapally.
16. Order dated 17.12.2018 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2017 in W.P.No. 39928 of
2017 reads as under:
“Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for
General Administration appearing for 1st Respondent and learned Government
Pleader Service – II appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and Sri G. Narender
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 9 to 23.
Having regard to the documents filed along with the Writ Petition by the
petitioners, it is clear that petitioners have been engaged in the Panchayat Raj
Department though for some period, their services were utilized by the Rural
Water Supply Department as well and they are being paid as on date from the
grants received by the respective Gram Panchayats as per XIV Finance
Commission as per proceedings No.A2/4855/2016 (Pts) dt.09-01-2016.
Though in the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, it is stated that petitioners
are being paid on piece rate basis, having regard to the certificates filed by
petitioners, which shows that petitioners had been engaged on monthly
remuneration and the statement by learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.
9 to 23 that their remuneration prior to the filing of the Writ Petition was around
Rs. 15,000/-, the plea that they were being paid on piece rate basis cannot be
accepted.
Respondent 1, 2, 4 to 8 have not filed any counter affidavit.
Though learned Government Pleader for Services-II contends that the principle
of equal pay for equal work in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and
Others will not apply since the petitioners are not rendering similar duties and
responsibilities as are being discharged by regular employees holding same/
corresponding posts in the Panchayat Raj Department, this contention is prima
facie without any merit since petitioners have been admittedly engaged for more
than 10 years in post of Pump Mechanic on monthly remuneration basis, which
admittedly according to the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 9 to
23 is around Rs. 15,000/- p.m.
In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to be
paid by respondents wages on par with minimum of pay scale of regularly
engaged Government employees holding such post of Pump Mechanic as per the
above decision.”
17. Order dated 18.10.2019 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2019 (Old No. W.P.M.P.No.
49501 of 2017) I.A.No. 1 of 2017 in W.P.No. 39928 of 2017, reads as under:
“This application filed by the third respondent in the Writ Petition, the
Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Hyderabad, to vacate the
order dated 17.12.2018 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2017 in the said Writ Petition.

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 65

286 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

The parties will be referred to as per their array in the Writ Petition.
By order dated 17.12.2018, this Court passed the following Order:
“Having regard to the documents filed along with the Writ Petition by the
petitioners, it is clear that petitioners have been engaged in the Panchayat Raj
Department though for some period, their services were utilized by the Rural
Water Supply Department as well and they are being paid as on date from the
grants received by the respective Gram Panchayats as per XIV Finance
Commission as per proceedings No. A2/4855/2016 (Pts) dt.09-01-2016.
Though in the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, it is stated that petitioners
are being paid on piece rate basis, having regard to the certificates filed by
petitioners, which shows that petitioners had been engaged on monthly
remuneration and the statement by learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.
9 to 23 that their remuneration prior to the filing of the Writ Petition was around
Rs. 15,000/-, the plea that they were being paid on piece rate basis cannot be
accepted.
Respondent Nos. 1. 2, 4 to 8 have not filed any counter affidavit.
Though learned Government Pleader for Services-II contends that the principle
of equal pay for equal work in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and
Others (2017) 1 SCC 148 will not apply since the petitioners are not rendering
similar duties and responsibilities as are being discharged by regular employees
holding same/ corresponding posts in the Panchayat Raj Department. this
contention is prima facie without any merit since petitioners have been
admittedly engaged for more than 10 years in post of Pump Mechanic on monthly
remuneration basis, which admittedly accordingly to the learned Standing
Counsel for respondent Nos. 9 to 23 is around Rs. 15,000/- p.m.
In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to be
paid by respondents wages on par with minimum of pay scale of regularly
engaged Government employees holding such post of Pump Mechanic as per the
above decision.”
This order was passed after considering the counter-affidavit filed by the third
respondent in the Writ Petition and also the statement of the Standing Counsel
of respondents 9 to 23.
Since the said order has been passed after considering the counter-affidavit of
the third respondent in the Writ Petition, it is not open to the said third respondent
to now file a petition to vacate the said order without challenging the same by
way of appeal.
Therefore, the vacate stay petition is dismissed and the order dated 17.12.2018
is made absolute”
18. The plea of the respondents in their counter affidavit that the respondents
engaged the service of the petitioners whenever and wherever their services are

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 66

2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v. State of Telangana TEL 287

required for the repairing of pumps within the jurisdiction of the concerned Mandal
Parishad and the petitioner were paid for the piece of work done by them on the
basis of assessment of respondent authorities from the source of funds provided for
the maintenance of sanitation and drinking water under the 13th Finance Com-
mission and the petitioners were not appointed on regular or contract basis cannot
be said to be true, having regard to the documents filed along with the writ petition
by the petitioners and a bare perusal of the same indicate that the petitioners have
been engaged in the Panchayat Raj Department though for some period their
services were utilized by the Rural Water Supply Department as well and they are
being paid as on date from the grants received by the respective Grampanchayats
as by 14th Finance Commission as per proceedings No.A2/4855/2006 (Pts), dated
09.01.2016 as observed by the High Court in its order dated 17.12.2018 passed in
I.A.No. 1 of 2018 and as admitted by the 1st to 3rd respondents in their counter
affidavit filed in the present writ petition that after completion of 13th Finance
Commission grants are directly released to the Grampanchayats in support of
Mandal Praja Parishad and the petitioners have been paid from the funds of the 14th
Finance Commission by the Grampanchayats as per the work extracted from the
petitioners.
19. In the counter affidavit at page 2 para one, respondents 1 to 3 it is specifically
pleaded that in some cases wages are being paid through third party (through
contractor), the same is extracted as under:
“It is to submit that, the hand pump mechanics were engaged as per need by the
concerned Mandal Parishad Development Officers on place work basis and they
are not termed as NMR/contract employee, there is no individual contract
between the employer and employee in writing even if there is any such contract
the same will become invalid as and when the work completes, payment was
made and they are working under a scheme which has no permanent future. Once
the works under scheme are completed, it will not be in force. The wages paid
to the persons who attended the work (repairing of hand pumps) from the funds
available in the scheme and in some cases wages are being paid through third
party (through contractor).
20. This Court opines that where a worker is engaged through a contractor or
through agencies, they, after deducting their commission, pay the wages to the
workers and probably with a fond hope that their services would be regularized
subsequently, they work as contract workers or through agencies. This is nothing
but exploiting the helplessness of those workers and thereby denying them the
minimum wages. It certainly violates the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of
the Constitution of India to those workers/employees like the petitioners.
21. The creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter
exclusively within the authority of the State and the respondents herein, but if they
did not choose to create a cadre or fill up the available vacancies in accordance with

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 67

288 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

the applicable procedure/Rules, but chose to make appointments of persons

creating contractual relationship, their action would be arbitrary.
22. Thus, the respondent authority cannot avoid recruitment to the posts in
question and engage persons like the petitioners through intermediaries/contractors
through the system of “outsourcing”, pay them paltry wages, and deny them
regularisation of services saying the decision in Uma Devi entitles them to deny
relief of regularisation. Engagement of the persons like the petitioners through
outsourcing agencies/intermediaries violates the law laid down in State of
Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) case.
23. This Court opines that the engagement of the persons like the petitioners
through 3rd party (through contractor) as admitted in the counter affidavit at page
2, para one, for more than 15 years without undertaking any exercise to identify
regular vacancy in the above posts in the various mandals pertaining to respondents
6 to 10 and fill up the same as per applicable rules by properly qualified personnel
and instead engaging persons through 3rd party (through contractor) is in clear
violation of law laid down in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) case and it
also violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of
the firm view that the respondents cannot contend that the petitioners are not
entitled to be considered for regularisation of their services in the said posts on the
ground that they were not recruited through a process of selection or on the ground
that they have been engaged through 3rd party (through contractor) without there
being any individual contract between the petitioners and respondents 6 to 10 and
further on the plea that they were engaged as per need by the respondents or on
the plea that there are no sanctioned posts in view of para 53 of the decision in State
of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) case which permits one time exercise on
regularisation to be done for the persons employed on temporary basis/daily wages
etc, who have rendered continuous service for more than 10 years.
24. A bare perusal of the order impugned in the present writ petition indicates
that the only ground taken for rejecting the petitioner’s request for regularization
of service, as it reflected in the order impugned in proceedings No. 37/CPR&RE/
C2/2015, dated 27.10.2016 is that the petitioners are out sourced as per need basis
and not termed as contract employees. The same is reiterated in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents. The counter affidavit, however, specifically takes
the plea that there is no individual contract between the employer and employee
in writing and further it is contended by the respondents that even if there is any
such contract, the same will become invalid as and when the work completes
payment is made and they are working under the scheme which has no permanent
future and further the wages are paid to the petitioners, who attend the work from
the funds available in the scheme and in some cases wages are paid through 3rd
party (through contractor). In fact, there is a clear observation of this Court in its
order dated 17.12.2018 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2018 in present W.P.No. 496 of 2018
in favour of the petitioners (extracted above) that the petitioners are rendering

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 68

2023-I-LLJ D. Uppalaiah v. State of Telangana TEL 289

similar duties and responsibilities as are being discharged of regular employees and
holding the same post/corresponding post in Panchayat Raj Department and further
the High Court taking into consideration the fact that admittedly the petitioners had
been engaged for more than 10 years in the post of pump mechanic on monthly
remuneration basis, very clearly specified the same in its order dated 17.12.2018
and further this Court very clearly opined and observed that the petitioners are
entitled to be paid the wages by the respondents on par with minimum pay scale
of regularly engaged Government Employees holding such post of pump mechanic
and the said orders are in force as on date.
25. 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 one time measure as explained at paras 6 to 10 of the Judgment of the Apex Court
in State of Karnataka and Others v. M.L. Kesari and Others (supra) 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 State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
(supra) 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 State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) case and the observation as held at para
‘5’ of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v. M.L.
Kesari and Others (supra) that Uma Devi casts a duty upon the concerned
Government and Instrumentality to take steps to regularize the services of those
irregularly 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 in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others (supra)
still hold good, which has clearly said that a legally permissible scheme has to be
framed in respect of daily wagers, adhoc 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 i.e., for ten years.
26. The respondents herein cannot deny the relief of regularization to the
petitioners as per para 53 of the decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra)
case, which permits one time exercise of regularization to be done for personal
employed on temporary basis/daily wages etc, who have rendered continuous
service for more than 10 years. The respondents herein 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 v. State of
Punjab (supra) 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.

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 69

290 TEL Labour Law Journal – Reports 2023-I-LLJ

27. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and in
view of the observations of the Apex Court in various judgments referred to and
discussed above, the writ petition is allowed duly setting aside the order impugned
in Procgs No. 37/CPR&RE/C2/2015, dated 27.10.2016 and the respondents while
continuously engaging the services of the petitioners herein are henceforth directed
to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in
accordance to law, in the posts whose work they are discharging now in the light
of the various judgments of the Apex Court referred to and discussed above and
pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order duly communicating the decision to the petitioner. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

Petition allowed.

LLJ-FEBRUARY-2023 Postal Page No. 70