Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 153 (AP)

Idaguttu Narayanamma v. Superintendent of Police

2021-03-16

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2021
ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “Writ of Mandamus under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the Respondents not regularizing the services of the petitioner as Sweeper and not paying regular salary as well as not paying minimum time scale attached to the post of Sweeper till regularizing the services of the petitioner and converting the petitioner as outsourcing employee by paying remuneration through the contractor instead of authorities as arbitrary illegal discriminatory malafide and unconstitutional violating Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh and others as reported in 20171 Supreme Court Cases 148 and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner as Sweeper and pay regular salary attached to the post of Sweeper w e f date of completion of 5 years of service as part time contingent employee with all constitutional benefits and further direct the Respondents to forthwith pay the minimum time scale attached to the post of Sweeper till regularizing the service of the petitioner as Sweeper w e f from 01041987 with all arrears and also direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as contingent Sweeper by paying salary by the authorities instead of treating as outsourcing employee by paying salary through the contractor” The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as part time sweeper in Kadiri Rural Police Station on 03.04.1987 on consolidated payment of Rs.625/-per month, which was increased from time to time, treating the petitioner as only part time contingent sweeper and paying remuneration attached to the post of part time sweeper as per the orders issued by the Government from time to time. The first respondent also furnished the list of part time contingent sweepers working in Anantapur District on an application under Right to Information Act vide proceedings date 10.01.2013, wherein the petitioner’s name was shown at Serial No.31. The first respondent also furnished the list of part time contingent sweepers working in Anantapur District on an application under Right to Information Act vide proceedings date 10.01.2013, wherein the petitioner’s name was shown at Serial No.31. It is the contention of the petitioner that, though she was rendering the service as sweeper in the concerned police station on par with other regular sweepers working in the department, she was not paid regular salary attached to that post in the minimum time scale, apart from considering her case for absorption/regularization in the cadre of sweeper whenever regular post of sweeper is available or regularizing the service of the petitioner as sweeper. The authorities are continuing the petitioner as contingent sweeper or part time sweeper since long time, thereby, such action is violative fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner made various representations dated 04.09.1993 and 01.05.2006 to the authorities requesting only to pay the minimum time scale attached to the post of sweeper but also to regularize the services of the petitioner or to absorb the petitioner as sweeper in the department and pay regular salary on completing the service of five years with effect from 01.04.1987. It is contended that, the authorities did not consider the requests made by the petitioner; instead of regularising the services and paying minimum time scale till regularising her services as sweeper, the authorities are trying to convert the petitioner as an outsourcing employee, compelling her to receive lesser remuneration, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chander Mohan Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 SCC Online SC 374 (To Be Changed) and judgment of High Court of Telangana in G. Srinivasa Chary v. State of Telangana, W.P.No.47675 of 2018 dated 07.08.2020 observing as follows: “79. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chander Mohan Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 SCC Online SC 374 (To Be Changed) and judgment of High Court of Telangana in G. Srinivasa Chary v. State of Telangana, W.P.No.47675 of 2018 dated 07.08.2020 observing as follows: “79. 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 Assistants 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; (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.” Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, in Gangikuntal Sridhar and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 (2) ALT 485 (D.B). On the basis of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed/regularized as Sweeper with a consequential minimum time scale of sweeper till regularization and continue as contingent sweeper instead of treating as outsourcing employee. The first respondent filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations while admitting engagement of the services of the petitioner as part time Sweeper to clean the police station from 23.02.1989 and as on date of appointment, she was being paid amount of Rs.75/-. Subsequently, as per G.O.Ms.No.336 dated 27.10.1989, her remuneration was enhanced from Rs.75/-to Rs.150/-with effect from 01.10.1989. Later, monthly remuneration was enhanced from time to time and at present, she is being paid a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month as remuneration as per the enhanced rate of daily wages periodically. The respondent denied appointment of this petitioner or conversion of this petitioner into outsourcing employee and more so, she is not entitled to minimum wage as she is not qualified in any manner to regularize her services. Hence, she will not come under the purview of Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). The respondent admitted about furnishing the details of part time Sweepers working in Anantapur District, in view of information received under Right to Information Act. It is specifically contended that, the principle laid down in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148 cannot be applied to the petitioner to extend minimum time scale, in view of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, wherein, the Government has categorically stated that the government decided that the services of such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and persons who are appointed on 25.11.1993 be regularized by appointing authorities subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in the said Government Order. It is further contended that, the petitioner was appointed as a contingent Sweeper on 23.02.1989. It is further contended that, the petitioner was appointed as a contingent Sweeper on 23.02.1989. As, the petitioner will not fall within the purview of the said Government Order, hence the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Though the petitioner made two representations dated 04.19.1993 and 12.05.2006 with a request to pay minimum time scale to the petitioner and to regularize her services as she completed her five years of service by 01.04.1987 is true. In this regard, it is submitted that after receipt of said representations, the respondents have verified the records and concluded that she was appointed on 23.02.1989 and hence as per G.O.Ms.No.112 the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria, hence, the representations of the petitioner were not considered, rejected. Therefore, on this count also, the petitioner is not entitled to claim regularization. Yet, another contention of the respondent is that, the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization even as per Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997 issued by the State Government, in which is it categorically stated that, the government after careful consideration of the issue formulated the seniority for regularization of the services of the persons appointed on part time basis, government have taken decision that the services of such persons who have worked continuously as part time workers for a minimum period of 10 years and who are appointed on 25.11.1993, the date on which the Act came into force, be regularized by the appointing authorities, subject to fulfilment of the conditions. Therefore, question of regularization of the petitioner’s services does not arise, as the petitioner did not complete ten years of service as on the cut off date. It is further contended that, there was no regular sanctioned post of Sweeper in Kadiri Police Station or any other police station and in the absence of any sanctioned post, the petitioner’s services cannot be regularized and the government cannot be compelled to create a post for her regularization and further contended that the principles laid down in the above judgments have no application to the present facts of the case and finally requested to dismiss the writ petition. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit and raised the following contentions: a) The petitioner who has completed five years service as on the cut off date is entitled for regularization, but no action was taken by the respondents and the inaction of the respondents is contrary to the principles laid down in various judgments of the Apex Court referred supra. b) Till regularization of the services of the petitioner, she is entitled to claim time scale attached to the post of regular Sweeper in terms of the judgment of Jagjit Singh case. But, no such time scale was extended to the petitioner and it is in violation of the principles laid down in Jagjit Singh case. c) Compelling this petitioner to convert as outsourcing employee from part time employee is nothing but an unfair labour practice taking advantage of the unemployment situation prevailing in the State, thereby, proposed conversion of this petitioner from part time employee to outsourcing employee is illegal and arbitrary. d) Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, by applying the principles laid down in the above judgments, the petitioner is entitled for extension of regular time scale attached to the post of Sweeper till her services are regularized and in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC, page 1 thereby the petitioner is entitled to claim regularization of her services and requested to pass appropriate orders as claimed in the writ petition. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Services-I mainly contended that, no post of Sweeper was sanctioned to the police station and her services were engaged on payment of daily wage, but not against a regular sanctioned post, thereby, she is not entitled to claim benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi case, since the services of this petitioner were engaged on daily wage basis and the petitioner is not entitled to claim regular pay scale attached to the post of Sweeper and the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi case has no application. Similarly, the principles laid down in Negi and Sridhar (referred supra) are also not applicable to the present facts of the case and they are distinguishable on facts and finally, requested to dismiss the writ petition. Similarly, the principles laid down in Negi and Sridhar (referred supra) are also not applicable to the present facts of the case and they are distinguishable on facts and finally, requested to dismiss the writ petition. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim extension of regular time scale attached to the post of Sweeper when she was appointed on daily wage contingent worker, till her services are regularized? 2. Whether the appointment of this petitioner is against a regular sanctioned post. If so, whether her case would fall within the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi case (supra). If so, whether the services of this petitioner are liable to be regularized by applying the principle laid down in the above judgment? POINT NO.1 The main endeavour of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner is working since long time as part time Sweeper and discharging her duties. But, she is being paid meagre salary. Therefore, she claimed benefit in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh. In the said judgment, the concept of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and entitlement of temporary employees to minimum regular pay scale along with dearness allowance as revised from time to time on account of their performing same duties as discharged by regular employees against sanctioned posts was considered. The Apex Court concluded that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ expounded through various decisions of Supreme Court constitutes law declared by Supreme Court, which is binding on all Courts in India, as such, it is also applicable to temporary employees performing the same duties and responsibilities as regular employees. It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour, more so, in a welfare State. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situated, constitutes act of exploitative enslavement emerging out of domineering position of the State. Thus held, temporary employees possessing requisite qualifications and appointed against posts which were also available in regular cadre, performing similar duties and responsibilities as being discharged by regular employees holding same/corresponding posts, were entitled to claim wages on a par with minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same posts. Thus held, temporary employees possessing requisite qualifications and appointed against posts which were also available in regular cadre, performing similar duties and responsibilities as being discharged by regular employees holding same/corresponding posts, were entitled to claim wages on a par with minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same posts. The Apex Court also considered the ‘Principle of parity’ in pay/pay scale and laid down following parameters: (i) claimant must prove that subject post occupied by him requires him to discharge equal work of equal value and sensitivity as reference post; (ii) mere fact that subject post occupied by claimant is in different department vis-à-vis reference post inconsequential; (iii) principle cannot be automatically invoked merely because subject and reference post have same nomenclature; (iv) differentiation of pay scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality fall within realm of valid classification justifying pay differentiation’ (v) persons performing similar functions, duties and responsibilities can be placed in different pay scales such as ‘selection grade’ in same post but such difference must have legitimate foundation such as merit, seniority, etc. (vi) reference post with which parity is claimed must be in same hierarchy a subject post; (vii) principles inapplicable where subject post and reference post are in different establishments having different management or even where establishments are in different geographical locations though owned by same master; (viii) priority given to different types of post under prevalent Government policy can be relevant factor for placing different posts under different scales; (ix) principle inapplicable where differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging same duties and holding same designation with objective of ameliorating stagnation or decrease of lack of promotional avenues. Based on the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, claim of parity by temporary employees in those cases where they were performing same duties as discharged by regular employees against sanctioned posts and clarified the law on that aspect. Similar question came up before the Division Bench of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 . In the facts of the above case, the respondents were employed as Mali-cum-Chowkidars/Pump Operators on daily wage basis, under the employment of the Government of Haryana. Similar question came up before the Division Bench of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 . In the facts of the above case, the respondents were employed as Mali-cum-Chowkidars/Pump Operators on daily wage basis, under the employment of the Government of Haryana. They had approached the High Court claiming the same salary as was being paid to the regularly employed persons, holding similar posts in the State of Haryana. The prayer was made by the respondents, on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The above prayer made by the respondents, was granted by the High Court. The High Court issued a direction to the State Government, to pay the respondents, the same salary and allowances as were being paid to regular employees holding similar posts, with effect from the dates on which the respondents were engaged by the State Government. The Apex Court held, that the respondents who were employed on daily-wage basis, could not be treated at par with persons employed on regular basis, against similar posts. It was concluded, that daily-rated workers were not required to possess the qualifications required for regular workers, nor did they have to fulfill the postulated requirement of age, at the time of recruitment. Dailyrated workers, it was felt, were not selected in the same manner as regular employees, inasmuch as, their selection was not as rigorous as that of employees selected on regular basis. The Apex Court expressed the view, that there were also other provisions relating to regular service, such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subjected to disciplinary jurisdiction. It was pointed out, that daily-rated employees were not subjected to either of the aforesaid contingencies/consequences. In view of the aforesaid consideration, the Apex Court held that the respondents, who were employed on daily wage basis, could not be equated with regular employees for purposes of their wages, nor were they entitled to obtain the minimum of the regular pay-scale extended to regular employees. The Apex Court, however held, that if a minimum wage was prescribed for such workers, the respondents would be entitled to it, if it was higher than the emoluments which were being paid to them. The Apex Court, however held, that if a minimum wage was prescribed for such workers, the respondents would be entitled to it, if it was higher than the emoluments which were being paid to them. It would be relevant to mention that in the above decision the Apex Court took notice of the fact, that the State of Haryana had taken policy decisions from time to time to regularize the services of the employees, similarly placed as the respondents, wherein daily-wage employees on completion of 3/5 years’ service, were entitled to regularization. On their being regularized, they were entitled to wages payable to regular employees. In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 595 decided by a two-Judge bench: The respondents were daily-wage Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks engaged by the State of Punjab. They approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court, claiming salary and allowances, as were being paid to regular employees holding similar posts. The High Court held in their favour, and directed the State Government to pay to the respondents, salary and allowances, as were being paid to regular employees holding similar posts. The aforesaid decision was rendered because the High Court accepted their contention, that they were doing the same work as was taken from regular Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks. Their prayer was accordingly accepted, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The Apex Court was of the view that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ could enure to the benefit of the respondents to the limited extent, that they could have been paid the minimum of the pay-scale of Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks, appointed on regular basis. This conclusion was drawn by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The Apex Court, therefore, allowed the prayer made by the State Government to the aforesaid limited extent. The right claimed by the respondents, to be paid in the same time scale, as regularly employed Ledger Keepers/Ledger Clerks were being paid, was declined. In State of U.P. Vs. J.P. Chaurasia8 the Supreme Court observed as under:- "The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a commission or committee, the court should normally accept it. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration." The Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Anr. v. M.R. Ganesh Babu & Ors, held as follows :- "The principle of equal pay for equal work has been considered and applied in may reported decisions of this Court. The principle has been adequately explained and crystallised and sufficiently reiterated in a catena of decisions of this Court. It is well settled that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The principle is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. The principle is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. Differentiation in pay scales of persons holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. The judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the court." (Emphasis supplied). In State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Tilak Raj & Ors, (2003) 6 SCC 123 the Supreme Court observed that, "Equal pay for equal work" is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work, as adumbrated under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. Possession of a higher qualification has all along been treated by this Court to be a valid basis for classification of two categories of employees. (vide U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sant Raj Singh & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2296 ) Formal education may not always produce excellence but a classification founded on variant educational qualifications is, for purposes of promotion to the post of an Executive Engineer, to say the least, not unjust on the face of it and the onus therefore cannot shift from where it originally lay. (vide The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and others, [ (1974) 1 SCC 19 ) In State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Pramod Bhartiya and others, (1993) 1 SCC 539 referring to the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, the Supreme Court observed: "13. (vide The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and others, [ (1974) 1 SCC 19 ) In State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Pramod Bhartiya and others, (1993) 1 SCC 539 referring to the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, the Supreme Court observed: "13. It would be evident from this definition that the stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar conditions. Further, as pointed out by Mukharji, J. (as he then was) in Federation of All India Customs and Excise Stenographers the quality of work may vary from post to post. It may vary from institution to institution. We cannot ignore or overlook this reality. It is not a matter of assumption but one of proof. The respondents (original petitioners) have failed to establish that their duties, responsibilities and functions are similar to those of the non-technical lecturers in Technical Colleges. They have also failed to establish that the distinction between their scale of pay and that of non-technical lecturers working in Technical Schools is either irrational and that it has no basis, or that it is vitiated by mala fides, either in law or in fact (see the approach adopted in Federation case)" In Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court opined that the nature of work may be more or less the same but scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to them. In Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347 it was clearly laid down that the holders of a higher qualification can be treated to be a separate class, holding: "20. Question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the part of the State would arise only if the persons are similarly placed. In Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347 it was clearly laid down that the holders of a higher qualification can be treated to be a separate class, holding: "20. Question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the part of the State would arise only if the persons are similarly placed. Equality clause contained in Article 14, in other words, will have no application where the persons are not similarly situated or when there is a valid classification based on a reasonable differentia.... In Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Ors, (2008) 10 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court observed that the respondents' claim for fixation of pay in the regular scale and grant of other monetary benefits on a par with those appointed against the sanctioned posts has been accepted by the High Courts on the premise that their duties and functions are similar to those performed by regular employees. In the opinion of the High Courts, similarity in the nature of work of the company-paid staff on the one hand and regular employees on the other hand, is by itself sufficient for invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work, In our view, the approach adopted by the High Courts is clearly erroneous and directions given for bringing about parity between the company-paid staff and regular employees in the matter of pay, allowances etc. are liable to be upset. The principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women embodied in Article 39(d) was first considered in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 and it was held that the said principle is not capable of being enforced in a court of law. After 36 years, the issue was again considered in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 and it was unequivocally ruled that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and can be enforced by reading it into the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in A. Umarani Vs. The Supreme Court in A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors, (2004) 7 SCC 112 held:- "Regularisation in our considered opinion is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any "State" within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a Statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It is also now well settled that an appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Statute and in particular ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularization” By applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, the Supreme Court considered the issue, whether temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale, along with dearness allowance (as revised from time to time) on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis, against sanctioned posts. The Courts, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that such like temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for reason, that the activities carried on by daily wagers and the regular employees were similar. However, it carved out two exceptions, and extended the minimum of the regular pay to such employees. (i) where temporary employee was appointed against regular sanctioned post after undergoing selection process, and (ii) where though appointment of temporary employees was not against regular sanctioned posts but their services were availed continuously with notional breaks by State Government or its instrumentalities for a period of 10 years or more indicating that work was of perennial nature and having worked for such long period equitable right was created in their favour. It was further held that where the claim for minimum pay scale was made by temporary employee after more than three years and two months of completion of ten years of continuous working, temporary employee would be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months. It was further held that where the claim for minimum pay scale was made by temporary employee after more than three years and two months of completion of ten years of continuous working, temporary employee would be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months. On considering a catena of decisions, the following parameters for invoking the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ are delineated: (i) The 'onus of proof', of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (ii) The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant, is in a "different department" vis-a-vis the reference post, does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Persons discharging identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of Government. (iii) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work', applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification. For equal pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity. (iv) Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked, merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature. (v) In determining equality of functions and responsibilities, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', it is necessary to keep in mind, that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible. The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Differentiation of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible. The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. (vi) For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale (vii) Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay-scales. Such as-'selection grade', in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as-merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria. (viii) If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable. In such a cause, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be invoked. (ix) The reference post, with which parity is claimed, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', has to be at the same hierarchy in the service, as the subject post. Pay-scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a promotional post. (x) A comparison between the subject post and the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be made, where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master. Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity. (xi) Different pay-scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master. Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity. (xi) Different pay-scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable. And also when, the reference post includes the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post. (xii) The priority given to different types of posts, under the prevailing policies of the Government, can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay-scales. Herein also, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable (xiii) The parity in pay, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be claimed, merely on the ground, that at an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay-scale. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities. (xiv) For parity in pay-scales, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', equation in the nature of duties, is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable. (xv) There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay-scales, between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e., between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and Ors. working at the institutional/sub-office level, when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar. (xv) There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay-scales, between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e., between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and Ors. working at the institutional/sub-office level, when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar. (xvi) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay-scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues. (xvii) Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a different organization, there can be no question of equation of pay-scales, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', even if two organizations have a common employer. Likewise, if the management and control of two organizations, is with different entities, which are independent of one another, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not. Finally, the Apex Court concluded s follows: Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned Counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the Appellants, that the Respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (-at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.” Thus, on the issue regarding entitlement of regular time scale on par with regular employees to the temporary employees is given guidance by the Apex Court. Turning to the facts of the present case, the petitioner was only a part time sweeper, discharging sweeping work in the police station. The total time being spent by her may be less than two hours in a day. Even otherwise, if the service of this petitioner was engaged in a regular sanctioned post of Sweeper, but not as a part time sweeper, the petitioner can claim the benefit of the judgment. The total time being spent by her may be less than two hours in a day. Even otherwise, if the service of this petitioner was engaged in a regular sanctioned post of Sweeper, but not as a part time sweeper, the petitioner can claim the benefit of the judgment. But, when there was no sanctioned post of sweeper, mere engagement of the petitioner as part time sweeper at Kadiri Rural Police Station, Anantapur District would not confer any benefit on the petitioner to claim minimum time scale based on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh. In the facts of the above judgment, the issue was with regard to entitlement to claim minimum time scale by temporary employees engaged in a sanctioned post on par with the services of regular employee. But, ultimately, the Court discussed about entitlement of daily wage employees, adhoc appointments etc. In the present case, the petitioner is neither a temporary employee, nor a daily wage worker, but her services were engaged as a part time sweeper. If the petitioner is a full time sweeper engaged on payment of daily wages, certainly, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh, if her appointment is against the sanctioned post. But, in the factual situation, the petitioner is disentitled to claim such benefit, being a part time sweeper whose services are engaged on payment of meagre amount, but not in a sanctioned post. Therefore, the petitioner is disentitled to claim the minimum time scale on par with the regular sweeper engaged either in Kadiri Rural Town Police Station or any other department, who are discharging similar duties. The petitioner herself admitted in Paragraph No.4 of the writ affidavit that, she was appointed as part time sweeper in Kadiri Rural Police Station on 03.04.1987. This admission is suffice to conclude that her services are not engaged on full time basis and in fact, the question of sanctioning the post of part time sweeper by the government is unknown to the pattern in police station. At best, she is entitled to claim the present daily wages notified by the Government from the same police station where her services are engaged. But, this Court cannot issue such direction since the Inspector of Police or Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiri Police Station are not parties before this Court. At best, she is entitled to claim the present daily wages notified by the Government from the same police station where her services are engaged. But, this Court cannot issue such direction since the Inspector of Police or Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiri Police Station are not parties before this Court. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINT No.2 One of the contentions urged by this petitioner is that, she is entitled for regularization of her services, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi case, though her services were engaged on part time basis. It is an undisputed fact that there was no sanctioned post in the cadre of part time sweeper and the process of her selection was not done by following the procedure for selection of regular employees. Therefore, question of regularization of her services is to be imposed, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi judgment. Members of daily wage employee is only being paid daily wage as and when work is available in the particular office. The respondents can disengage her services at any time, if they feels that her services are not necessary and no notice is required to be issued for removal of this petitioner treating her as daily wage worker. Her services are not governed by any Rules. Hence, no procedure is specified by the State for removal of such daily wage workers. She has no right to continue in service when there is no work in the police station and when her services are not required by the respondents, refusal to engage the services of the petitioner by the respondent is not an illegality. For removal of NMRs/daily wage employees, principles of natural justice are not required to be followed, as engagement of their services is purely need based. Their services can be engaged or disengaged by the department depending upon the work exigency. Mere payment of amount to the petitioner by the respondents on monthly basis is not sufficient to conclude that the services of the petitioner can be regularized and it represents the total accrued amount paid to the petitioner for that particular month as daily wage. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief. Mere payment of amount to the petitioner by the respondents on monthly basis is not sufficient to conclude that the services of the petitioner can be regularized and it represents the total accrued amount paid to the petitioner for that particular month as daily wage. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief. On overall consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was engaged in the police station as part time sweeper on consolidated pay and this fact is admitted by the petitioner in Paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of the writ affidavit. Though the petitioner contended that her services be regularized from part time sweeper to regular sweeper, the same is not substantiated by any material and this Court cannot inquire into the disputed question of fact, while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the allegations made in the affidavit, the petitioner was engaged as part time sweeper without any appointment order. The very appointment is contrary to provisions in the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). The word ‘daily wage employee’ is defined under Section 2(ii) of the Act. 'Daily wage employee' means any person who is employed in any public service on the basis of payment of daily wages and includes a person employed on the basis of nominal muster roll or consolidated pay either, on full-time or part-time or piece rate basis or as a work charged employee and any other similar category of employees by whatever designation called other than those who are selected and appointed in a sanctioned post in accordance with the relevant rules on regular basis. The pleadings of the petitioner and respondents would directly attract the term ‘daily wage employee’ as defined under Section 2(ii) of the Act. Daily wage appointments and regularization of temporary appointments are prohibited by Section 3 of the Act. According to Section 3 of the Act:- (1) The appointment of any person in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade as a daily wage employee is hereby prohibited. Daily wage appointments and regularization of temporary appointments are prohibited by Section 3 of the Act. According to Section 3 of the Act:- (1) The appointment of any person in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade as a daily wage employee is hereby prohibited. (2) No temporary, appointment shall be made in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade without the prior permission of the competent authority and without the name of the concerned candidate being sponsored by the Employment Exchange Therefore, the very appointment of this petitioner as part time sweeper on temporary basis or regular basis is contrary to Section 3 of the Act. According to Section 6 of the Act, any person who contravenes the provisions of the Act is liable for penalties. (1) Where any holder of an elective office or any officer or authority makes any appointment in contravention of the provisions of this Act- (a) it shall be deemed in the case of the holder of an elective office that he has abused his position or power and accordingly the competent authority shall initiate proceedings for his removal; and (b) in the case of an officer, or authority it shall be deemed that he is guilty of misconduct and the competent authority shall initiate action under the relevant disciplinary rules. (2) In addition to taking action under sub-section (1) the pay and allowances paid the person whose appointment is in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be an illegal payment and a loss to the Government or, as the case may be, to the concerned institution and the same shall be recoverable by surcharging the same under the Andhra Pradesh State Audit Act, 1989 (Act 9 of 1989) against the person, officer or authority who makes such appointment in contravention of the provisions of this Act or where such surcharge is not possible under the said Act in accordance with such manner as may he prescribed including as arrears of land revenue. No posts are sanctioned to engage the petitioner as part time sweeper on daily wage basis or on regular basis. No posts are sanctioned to engage the petitioner as part time sweeper on daily wage basis or on regular basis. In the absence of any sanctioned posts of sweeper, engaging the services of this petitioner in any mode, including appointment as part time sweeper, is a serious illegality and in contravention to Section 3 of the Act, thereby, the second respondent is liable for penalties prima facie. Thus, the petitioner is having no subsisting legal right enforceable in the Court of law, as her appointment itself is illegal and in contravention to Section 3 of the Act. One of the contentions raised before this Court is that, the petitioner is working as part time sweeper since long time in Kadiri Police Station and her services were not regularized, despite issuing G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997 and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working in Kadiri Police Station as part time sweeper, which is admittedly not a sanctioned post. Therefore, the question is, whether a person not appointed against any sanctioned post is entitled to claim such regularization of service or absorption in service. In view of these specific contentions raised by the petitioner, it is appropriate to advert to the law declared by the Apex Court and other Courts to order regularization of services of the petitioner. The basis for this claim is the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra). The ratio laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court can be analyzed as follows: (I) The questions to be asked before regularization are:- (a) (i) Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation of posts because finances of the state may go haywire), (ii) is there a vacancy, (iii) are the persons qualified persons and (iv) are the appointments through regular recruitment process of calling all possible persons and which process involves inter-se competition among the candidates (b) A court can condone an irregularity in the appointment procedure only if the irregularity does not go to the root of the matter. (II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14, 16, 309, 315, 320 etc is violated. (II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14, 16, 309, 315, 320 etc is violated. (III) In case of existence of necessary circumstances the government has a right to appoint contract employees or casual labour or employees for a project, but, such persons form a class in themselves and they cannot claim equality except possibly for equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who form a separate class. Such temporary employees cannot claim legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they knew when they were appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as the government did not give and nor could have given an assurance of regularization without the regular recruitment process being followed. Such irregularly appointed persons cannot claim to be regularized alleging violation of Article 21. Also the equity in favour of the millions who await public employment through the regular recruitment process outweighs the equity in favour of the limited number of irregularly appointed persons who claim regularization. (IV) Once there are vacancies in sanctioned posts such vacancies cannot be filled in except without regular recruitment process, and thus neither the court nor the executive can frame a scheme to absorb or regularize persons appointed to such posts without following the regular recruitment process. (V) At the instance of persons irregularly appointed the process of regular recruitment shall not be stopped. Courts should not pass interim orders to continue employment of such irregularly appointed persons because the same will result in stoppage of recruitment through regular appointment procedure. (VI) If there are sanctioned posts with vacancies, and qualified persons were appointed without a regular recruitment process, then, such persons who when the judgment of Uma Devi is passed have worked for over 10 years without court orders, such persons be regularized under schemes to be framed by the concerned organization. (VI) If there are sanctioned posts with vacancies, and qualified persons were appointed without a regular recruitment process, then, such persons who when the judgment of Uma Devi is passed have worked for over 10 years without court orders, such persons be regularized under schemes to be framed by the concerned organization. (VII) The aforesaid law which applies to the Union and the States will also apply to all instrumentalities of the State governed by Article 12 of the Constitution." In view of the guidelines laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, the Court must examine whether the appointment was against the sanctioned post; whether any vacancy is available; whether the person is qualified; whether the appointment through regular recruitment process calling all possible persons involves inter se competition among the candidates. If the petitioner satisfied all the requirements, the Court can issue a direction for regularization in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra). But, in the present facts of the case, the services of the petitioner were engaged on daily wage basis as part time sweeper to clean the police station premises for an hour or two in a day. No applications were called for through regular recruitment, permitting the public to apply for it. There was no sanctioned post on part time sweeper in any of the police station or police organization. The respondent raised a specific contention that there was no sanctioned post of part time sweeper in police department. The petitioner did not disclose anywhere whether she is qualified to be appointed in any last grade services of the State. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish that she was appointed against a sanctioned post as part time sweeper and that, she is qualified to be appointed in the last grade service in the State. Finally, the appointment of the petitioner was not through regular recruitment process, competing with other persons facing inter se competition among the candidates who applied for it. Therefore, the case of this petitioner would not fall within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra). Finally, the appointment of the petitioner was not through regular recruitment process, competing with other persons facing inter se competition among the candidates who applied for it. Therefore, the case of this petitioner would not fall within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra). When the petitioner did not specify the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra), she is not entitled to claim regularization or absorption in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997. At the same time, in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra), the Apex Court made serious observations as to the backdoor method appointments. The Apex Court clarified that there may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128 R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in paragraph 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 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 courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. In Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC & Ors v. K. V. Ramana & Ors 2007 ALL SCR 1121, the Division Bench of the Apex Court again by placing reliance on the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra), held that, absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by the Courts. As regards the circular dated 31.3.1998 the same cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and hence regularization cannot be granted under the said circular. Even if the contract labourers or casual workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a long period they cannot be regularized dehors the rules for selection. There are conflicting views regarding regularization. However, it is clear from the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra), that if these petitioners were selected based on regular notification and based on regular selection process in the existing vacancies, subject to satisfying the selection; she is entitled for regularization or absorption in the department. But, here, the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra) and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization or absorption in the regular post, extending regular pay scale. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the petitioner failed to show that she has no existing legal right, thereby, this Court cannot issue a direction by way of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as sweeper and to pay regular salary along with minimum time scale attached to the post of sweeper. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.