ORDER : Heard Sri V.Jagapathi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and Sri Nyayapati Prashant, learned standing counsel for TSPHCL and the learned Government Pleader for Home. Perused the material available on record. 2. Since the core issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that all the petitioners were selected by the Selection Committee in pursuance of the recruitment notification issued by the 1st respondent and in pursuance to the letter dated 17.08.2012 all the petitioners were appointed to the post of Site Engineers Graduate (Civil), Site Engineer/Junior Assistants (Temp.) and site Engineer Diploma (Civil) respectively on contract basis initially for a period of 11 months on consolidated remuneration. It is the further case of the petitioners that the notification did not specify that the recruitment for appointment to the posts of Site Engineers and Junior Assistants are on contract basis or on consolidated pay basis. Moreover the period of appointments were restricted for a period not exceeding 11 months and stipulated that the appointment will automatically come to an end immediately on completion of 11 months. 4. The 1st respondent orally informed to the petitioners that the period of initial appointment is for 11 months to watch the performance of the petitioners, however, if the performance of the petitioners is satisfactory, they would not only be continued but their services would also be regularized/absorbed in the vacant posts in which they were appointed. However, contrary to that the 1st respondent issued orders in July, 2014 i.e. after formation of the State of Telangana once again appointing the petitioners for a period of 11 months on the same consolidated remuneration with similar conditions of appointment, on contract basis. The same pattern has been continued for further years of-course with slight enhancement of the remuneration. Thus, the petitioners have been rendering their services for more than eight years but still their services are not regularized. 5. To their utter shock and surprise, on 22.02.2020 the 1st respondent issued orders discontinuing the petitioners in WP No.3914 of 2020 and on 08.04.2022 in WP No.19006 of 2022 and on 05.02.2020 and also on 28.12.2019 in WP No.4676 of 2020 from service since their contract period had expired on 21.02.2020. 5. To their utter shock and surprise, on 22.02.2020 the 1st respondent issued orders discontinuing the petitioners in WP No.3914 of 2020 and on 08.04.2022 in WP No.19006 of 2022 and on 05.02.2020 and also on 28.12.2019 in WP No.4676 of 2020 from service since their contract period had expired on 21.02.2020. The 1st respondent is contemplating to appoint through manpower agency to discharge the duties performed by the petitioners at a higher monthly remuneration and therefore, the 1st respondent is not inclined to continue the petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents denying the allegations levelled against them in all these writ petitions. The sum and substance of these counter affidavits is that the notification clearly specifies that the services are purely on temporary/contract basis which means that on expiry of tenure their services will automatically be ceased and that the appointment orders were also given in consonance with the notification. Further, in accordance with the notification the petitioners have executed agreements individually on their free will and having knowledge about the same, the petitioners now cannot take a different view for filing the writ petitions. It is further contended that the request of the petitioners for sanction of time-scale of pay as that of regular employees does not arise at all as they were engaged purely on contract basis for a specific period of 11 months. As there was no regular recruitment, the petitioners were engaged on contract basis for a limited period from time to time. The Government of Telangnana issued GOMs.No.44, dated 01.05.2018 according permission to fill up 73 regular posts in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers and Junior Assistants through TSPSC and to take appropriate steps for fillings the said vacancies duly issuing necessary notification. The petitioners were engaged only on contract basis for a fixed period and the officials of the Corporation never have given any oral or written assurance to absorb or regularize their services in the Corporation or at least continuation till filling-up of regular vacancies. The petitioners were engaged only on contract basis for a fixed period and the officials of the Corporation never have given any oral or written assurance to absorb or regularize their services in the Corporation or at least continuation till filling-up of regular vacancies. The petitioners who were engaged on contract basis during the year 2012 in a Divisional Level were neither sponsored by employment exchange nor selected by the State Service Commission but selected for being engaged on contract basis on need and necessity for a temporary period with a view to assist the regular/permanent employees who are overburdened due to increased workload/turnover, are therefore not entitled for any regularization/absorption or any minimum scale of pay. Stating thus, the respondents requested to dismiss these writ petitions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners were appointed in the regular selection process against the sanctioned posts to the Corporation by the Government by duly following the rule of reservation, minimum educational qualification, age and other criteria as are applicable to the regular appointment and since the petitioners have completed more than eight years continuous service, including the artificial breaks, the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services in the sanctioned vacant posts. He further submitted that the petitioners are entitled for salary on par with their counterparts in the 1st respondent Corporation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 wherein it was held that “equal pay for equal work” has to be extended to the temporary employees also. He further submitted that the petitioners are being continued with artificial breaks in their service on completion of every eleven months period without subjecting them to any further selection. It is further contended that the Government has issued orders in GOMs.No.16 dated 26.02.2016 in relaxation of Act 2 of 1994, according permission to regularize services of contract employees working in the sanctioned vacant posts and a number of contract employees appointed much later than the writ petitioners were absorbed/regularized in other departments as per the said GO, which is in force as on date. Therefore, the attitude of the respondents towards the petitioners is discriminatory. 8. Therefore, the attitude of the respondents towards the petitioners is discriminatory. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that by letter dated 02.06.2017 the 1st respondent informed that presently all the sanctioned works are in progress and executed by the employees appointed on yearly contract basis and there is dire need to fill-up at least 50% posts in the core cadre of AEEs and Junior Assistants and requested the Government to accord permission for recruitment in the above post. All the regular AEEs and Junior Assistants, who are in service as on the date of the said letter i.e. 02.06.2017 are either promoted or retired from service and as on date all the 50 sanctioned posts of AEEs and 33 sanctioned posts of Junior Assistants are vacant in the Corporation. Since the respondent Corporation has unilaterally decided not to issue further continuation orders to the contract employees including the writ petitioners, the petitioners filed WP Nos.5108 of 2020 and 6052 of 2020 wherein this Court passed common order directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the letter dated 02.06.2017 of the 1st respondent read with the scheme of regularization of services of contract employees issued by the 2nd respondent. Yet, the respondents have not taken any action to regularize the services of the petitioners. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the services of the petitioners ought to have been regularized before calling for applications and would have undertaken that exercise if necessary only after filling up the same with the petitioners and still if any leftover posts of kept vacant, they may be filled up through open notification. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 29 wherein it is held that the management shall take steps, whenever necessary, to fill-up permanent vacancies in accordance with rules and that delay in filling up the vacancies shall not entitle the Management to terminate the services of temporary employee except for adequate reasons. He also relied upon the decisions rendered in K.Venkateswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2011(6) ALD 463 (DB). 11. He also relied upon the decisions rendered in K.Venkateswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2011(6) ALD 463 (DB). 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.P.Nos.24506 of 2019 and 8096 of 2021, dated 12.06.2023. 12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation contended that the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 held that “appointments made without following due process or the rules for appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and that the Courts cannot direct their absorption or regularization or re-engagement or making them permanent”. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has further submitted that the petitioners were engaged on contract/temporary basis for a limited period of 11 months by duly executing agreement bonds as Site Engineers (Civil) and Junior Assistants, which posts are not available in the service regulations of the Corporation at any time. He further submitted that the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent Corporation in its 19th meeting held on 30.05.2020 resolved to dispense with engaging the staff on contract basis more particularly the Site Engineers and Junior Assistants with effect from 09.01.2020. He further submitted that as regular recruitment did not take place due to ban imposed by the Government and also due to various reasons the services of Site Engineers and Juniors Assistants were taken on contract basis afresh for a limited period with fixed remuneration duly executing agreement bonds with their free will and consent after assessing the work load/projects on hand each time which does not mean that their services were renewed year after year. Before beginning of each fresh term the petitioners have executed agreements for consideration and taking a decision to appoint them afresh some time gap occurred naturally and during the period in between their previous term and fresh term the petitioners were not paid any remuneration for the reason they did not work during that time. 14. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Gujarat and others Vs. R.J.Pathan, (2022) 5 SCC 394 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in identical circumstances denied the relief of absorption. 14. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Gujarat and others Vs. R.J.Pathan, (2022) 5 SCC 394 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in identical circumstances denied the relief of absorption. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent has relied upon the decisions rendered in Smt.Preethi Bhandage and others Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, represented by its Principal Secretary and others, ILR 2019 KAR 3415 and Shilpa Jindal Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 12112. 15. Upon perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions relied upon by both sides and after consideration of rival contentions adduced on both sides, it is an admitted fact that through the resolution passed by the respondent Housing Board the writ petitioners were taken into employment as against the sanction posts and accordingly, after issuing paper notification for appointment of contract employees, the writ petitioners were taken into employment by fixing a period of 11 months and subsequently the writ petitioners were given extension by reviewing the contract with a regular break of 11 months. Further, the services of the petitioners were discontinued due to Corona pandemic without any notices violating the principles of natural justice. Further, it is a fact to be taken into consideration that the petitioners have been serving the respondent Corporation for years together on contract basis with a regular break of 11 months for a term in their respective cadres. The respondents have given notification calling for the applications afresh for recruiting same cadre posts by fixing the pay scales which are much higher than the salaries of the petitioners. 16. Though it is an admitted fact that the writ petitioners were appointed in the sanctioned post on temporary basis and their services have been extended from time to time with a regular breaks without regularization, they did not make any representation to the Government but for the first time they approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition seeking regularization of their services. 17. In Khagesh Kumar and Ors. 17. In Khagesh Kumar and Ors. vs. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 417 the Hon’ble apex Court held as follows: In the event of appointment on regular basis on the post of Registration Clerks, the petitioners or other similarly placed persons who had worked as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis may be given one opportunity of being considered for such appointment and they be given relaxation in the matter of age requirement prescribed for such appointment under the Rules. 17. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that many of them have rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in a year and that they are entitled to be regularised. We find no merit in this contention. In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors. (1992) II LLJ 452 SC, this Court has not accepted the principle that an employee can seek regularisation only on the ground that he has put in work for 240 or more days. Similarly, in the State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Ors. [1992] 1 SCC 118, this Court, while setting aside the direction of the High Court that all those ad hoc, temporary employees who had continued for more than a year should be regularised, has observed : “None of the decisions relied upon by the High Court justify such wholesale, unconditional orders. Moreover, from the mere continuation of an ad hoc employee for one year, it cannot be presumed that there is need for a regular post. Such a presumption may be justified only when such continuance extends to several years. Further, there can be no 'rule of thumb' in such matters. Conditions and circumstances of one unit may not be the same as of the other. Just because in one case, a direction was given to regularise employees who have put in one year's service as far as possible and subject to fulfilling the qualifications, it cannot be held that in each any every case such a direction must follow irrespective of and without taking into account the other relevant circumstances and considerations.” 18. Just because in one case, a direction was given to regularise employees who have put in one year's service as far as possible and subject to fulfilling the qualifications, it cannot be held that in each any every case such a direction must follow irrespective of and without taking into account the other relevant circumstances and considerations.” 18. In that case, this Court has, however, observed: “If a casual labourer has continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is a regular need for his services and in such a situation it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation.” 18. The observations made by the Hon’ble apex Court in the above decision was that from the mere continuation of an adhoc employee for one year, it cannot be presumed that there is need for a regular post. Such a presumption may be justified only when such continuance extends to several years. The Hon’ble apex Court further went on observing that if a casual labourer has continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is a regular need for his services and in such a situation it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation.” 19. In the cases on hand, the petitioners herein were being continued from the year 2012. So it can be presumed that there is a regular need for their services and in such a situation the respondents are under an obligation to examine the feasibility of their regularization. 20. In Registrar Osmania University, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. B.K. Rama Devi, MANU/AP/0375/2002 the erstwhile High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: 6. The law relating to the regularization of services is a subject-matter of many pronouncements of the Supreme Court. In Ashwani Kumar and Ors., v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1997) II LLJ 856 SC, the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, dealing with the necessary conditions to direct regularization of services of an employee, has opined in para 14 of the judgment that- "In this connection it is pertinent to note that question of regularization in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies. Firstly, if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found that the incumbents concerned have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or without any artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employ them, a time may come in the service career of such employees who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time to regularize them so that the employees concerned can give their best by being assured security of tenure. But this would require one precondition that the initial entry of such an employee must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation in which the question of regularization may arise would be when the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. A need may then arise in the light of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial appointment by a competent authority and the irregular initial appointment may be regularized and security of tenure may be made available to the incumbent concerned……..” From a careful perusal of the above observations of the Apex Court, three principles can be deduced. Before directing regularization of services of a temporary or ad hoc employees, the Court should find the existence of two conditions, namely, (i) the appointment was made against a clear vacancy in a sanctioned post, and that (ii) that appointment was made following the rules and regulations governing such appointment. According to the Apex Court, even in a case where these two conditions co-exist, the question whether regularization should be ordered or not is always with the domain and discretion of the Court and that discretion has to be exercised judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of principles stated above, we find that both the preconditions co-exist. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of principles stated above, we find that both the preconditions co-exist. We say this because, even according to the University as reflected in its counter, the vacancy arose on account of the demise of the incumbent, applications were called for, the petitioner applied for the post and she was interviewed and selected. Although a contention was raised before the learned single Judge that the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher was irregular and not in accordance with the regulations, the University did not place any material or relevant rules, statutory or otherwise, governing recruitment to the post of a teacher in the High School, except placing reliance on Section 43 of the Act. Section 43 of the Act speaks about the constitution of Selection Committee in regard to the appointment of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. It is true that the petitioner was not selected by the committee constituted under Section 43 of the Act. But, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, Section 43 has no application to the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher in the High School. Section 43 deals with constitution of Selection Committee by the University exclusively with regard to the appointment of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in the University and not teachers in the High School managed and run by the University to cater the educational needs of the students of the University's employees. In the absence of statutory regulations governing recruitment to the post of teacher in the High School, the procedure adopted by the School Management in the year 1985 in calling for applications and appointing the petitioner as a teacher in a clear vacancy in the sectioned post cannot be said to be an irregular procedure. On the other hand, in the absence of such rules, the procedure adopted by the School Management was appropriate, proper and legal. Therefore, the second pre-condition was also complied with in the year 1985 when the petitioner was appointed as a teacher. In other words, both the preconditions for directing regularization of the services of an employee do exist in this case. 21. In Jacob M. Puthuparambil Vs. Therefore, the second pre-condition was also complied with in the year 1985 when the petitioner was appointed as a teacher. In other words, both the preconditions for directing regularization of the services of an employee do exist in this case. 21. In Jacob M. Puthuparambil Vs. Kerala Water Authority, (1991) 1 SCC 28 the Hon’ble Apex court observed that the employees who are serving on the establishment for long spells and have the requisite qualifications for the job should not be thrown out but their services should be regularized as far as possible. Since the petitioners in the cases on hand have also been working for such a long time though on intermittent breaks for a reasonable long spells they are entitled to be regularized in service. Once the appointees continued for a long time, the services have to be regularized if the incumbent possesses the requisite qualifications,. Such an approach alone would be consistent with the constitutional philosophy. The employees who have been working on establishment since long time and who possess requisite qualification for the job as obtaining on the date of their employment, must be allowed to continue their jobs and their services should be regularized. It is unfair and unreasonable to remove people who have been rendering service since sometime since such removal has serious consequences. The family of the employee which has settled down and accommodated its needs to the emoluments received by the breadwinner will face economic ruination if the job is suddenly taken away. Besides, the precious period of early life devoted in the service of the establishment will be wholly wasted and the incumbent may be rendered “age barred” for securing a job elsewhere. It is indeed unfair to use him, generate hope and a feeling of security in him attune his family to live within his earnings and then suddenly to throw him out of job. Such behaviour would be an affront to the concept of job security and would run counter to the constitutional philosophy particularly the concept of right to work in the Article 14 of the Constitution. 22. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents in giving artificial breaks in service of the petitioners and denying reappointment orders to the petitioners on par with the similarly situated employees with an intention to deny them regularization in the existing vacancies is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. 23. 22. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents in giving artificial breaks in service of the petitioners and denying reappointment orders to the petitioners on par with the similarly situated employees with an intention to deny them regularization in the existing vacancies is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. 23. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the respondents was that though the Government has issued orders from time to time for regularisation of the temporary/contract employees with certain conditions, but, still the petitioners are not entitled for such relief for the simple reason that the Corporation is not bound by the regularisation orders issued by the Government as it is an independent in nature. Unless and until a resolution adopting to that effect is being resolved by the Corporation, such G.Os shall not have any binding effect on the Corporation. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Corporation had engaged the petitioners on the strength of the posts sanctioned by the Government only. In that view of the matter, the contention taken by the learned standing counsel for the respondents has no legs to stand and will not stand for scrutiny of law. 24. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24506 of 2019 and 8096 of 2021, by order dated 12.06.2023 taking aid of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 held that it is permissible for the State to grant regularisation of services of temporary employees if their initial recruitment was not illegal. The Division Bench further held that if the recruitment was irregular and certain procedure was not strictly adhered to, such candidates can be regularised. In the case on hand, all the writ petitioners were selected by the Selection Committee in pursuance of the recruitment notification issued by the 1st respondent and in pursuance to the letter dated 17.08.2012 all the petitioners were appointed to the post of Site Engineers Graduate (Civil), Site Engineer/Junior Assistants (Temp.) and site Engineer Diploma (Civil) respectively. Moreover, the petitioners have been working in the respondent organisation for more than a decade, may be with certain artificial breaks. But such artificial breaks do not disentitle the petitioners from claiming regularisation of their services. 25. Moreover, the petitioners have been working in the respondent organisation for more than a decade, may be with certain artificial breaks. But such artificial breaks do not disentitle the petitioners from claiming regularisation of their services. 25. This Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made on either side and also having regard to the observations made by the Hon’ble apex Court in the cases cited supra, is of the considered view that the respondents ought not to have discontinued the petitioners, which is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. So far as the regularization of services of the petitioners is concerned, the writ petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondent Corporation with appropriate applications by making out their case for regularization and the respondents are directed to consider their case in accordance with law and rules in force within a period of three months and till the regularisation is being considered, the respondents are directed to continue the writ petitioners in the present position in their Corporation without resorting to any coercive steps and not to replace them with any other outsourcing candidates keeping in view of their long standing services in the Corporation. Keeping in view of the age of the individuals, the respondents shall also consider to relax the age conditions while considering the issue of regularisation of the services of the petitioners with prospective effect only and without any claim of monetary benefits. 26. With the above observations, all these writ petitions i.e. WP Nos.3914 of 2020, 4676 of 2020 and19006 of 2022 are disposed of without costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall also stands disposed of.