ORDER: SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri K.Amrith Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ch.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking the prayer as under: “….to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing G.O.Rt.No.121 Revenue (Endowment-1)Department, dated 09.03.2018, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, void and consequently, to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with reference to their length of service and seniority in the light of the provisions contained in G.O.Rt.No.121 dated 09.03.2018 and grant the arrears of pay attached to the posts held by the petitioners including the annual grade increments as and when fell due from time to time in accordance to G.O.Rt.No.577 dated 15.09.2017 and to pass.” 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were appointed as daily wage workers (cooks and laddu makers) in Sri Anjaneya Swami Devasthanam, Kondagattu, during the years 2003, 2005, and 2008. After the temple was taken over by the Endowments Department in 2008, the petitioners continued their uninterrupted service. Despite receiving salary enhancements and EPF deductions, the petitioners repeated requests for regularization since 2012 were ignored. Though eligible under G.O.Rt.No.121 Revenue (Endowment-1)Department, dated 09.03.2018 and G.O.Rt.No.577 dated 15.09.2017, the petitioners were denied the benefits extended to similarly placed employees in other temples. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) This Court, vide its order dated 28.03.2024, passed interim orders in favour of the petitioner observing as under: “Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file counter. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay minimum pay scale to the petitioners on par with the regularly engaged employees, discharging similar duties, until further orders. Post on 05.06.2024 for counter.” B) The averments made in the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 in the present writ petition and in particular, paragraph No.4 is extracted hereunder: 4. Post on 05.06.2024 for counter.” B) The averments made in the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 in the present writ petition and in particular, paragraph No.4 is extracted hereunder: 4. “I submit that in this regard, the answering respondent would like to submit that the petitioners herein are not appointed by the competent authority in terms of the statutory rules in the subject temple either on contract/consolidated/NMR basis.” C) The relevant portion of the proceedings vide R.C.No.25/ SMDAD/2018 dated 09.08.2018 of the Executive Officer, Endowments Department is extracted hereunder: “ Proceedings Vide R.C.No.25/SMDAD/2018 Dated 09.08.2018 Sub:Endowments Department –Sri Maisamma Devatha Temple, Kakarlapahad (V), Nawabpet (M), Mahabubnagar District-Extending Time Scale to Sri K.Yaranna as Paricharika in the existing vacancy-Orders issued. Ref: 1. G.O.Rt.No.577 Rev (Endts.1) Dept Dt: 15.09.2017, 2. G.O.Rt.No.121 Rev (Endts.1) Dept Dt: 09.03.2018 3. Rc.No.B/6206/2018, dt: 25.06.2018 from the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Telangana, Hyderabad, 4. COE, T.S., Hyderabad Proceeding in Rc.No.B3/9292/2018, dt: 04.08.2018. &&& In pursuance of the orders issued in the reference 3 rd and 4 th cited in exercise of the powers vested under T.S.C. & H.R.I. Act and Rules undertaking into consideration requirement, income of the Temple Sri K.Yarranna who is working as Paricharika in the existing/Supernumerary vacancy and his pay has been fixed at Rs.15.030 in the time scale of 15.030 -46.060 in R.P.S.2015. It is further informed that Grant In Aid component of salary will be paid subject to availability and release of Grant by Government. If the pay now fixed is found erroneous in future the difference of pay and allowances paid shall be recovered from the individual without assigning any prior notice. Necessary entries are made in the Service Register of the individual. Executive Officer, Endowments Department Sri Maisamma Devatha Ammavari Devasthanam, Kakarlapahad (V) Nawabpet (M), Mahabubnagar District” DISCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSION:- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, despite the specific directions issued by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2024 in favour of the petitioners, the same had not been implemented as on date and the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the present writ petition, and that the respondents are bound to implement G.O. Rt. No. 121, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 09.03.2018. No. 121, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 09.03.2018. Further, the respondents ought to regularize the services of the petitioners, taking into consideration their long tenure of service and seniority, in light of the provisions contained in the said G.O. Rt. No. 121, and also grant arrears of pay attached to the posts held by the petitioners, including annual grade increments as and when they fall due, in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 577, dated 15.09.2017. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further draws the attention of this Court to the proceedings filed as material document Ex.P.13 in support of the petitioners’ case, and contends that similarly situated persons have been extended the benefit of G.O. Rt. No. 577, dated 15.09.2017, and G.O.Rt.No. 121, dated 09.03.2018, wherein the time scale was fixed at Rs.15.030 in the time scale of 15.030-46.060 in R.P.S.2015. However, despite repeated requests by the petitioners, their case for extending similar benefits has not been considered as on date. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that, under similar circumstances, other petitioners who approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 9392 of 2019, W.P. No. 23363 of 2021, and W.P. No. 13959 of 2021 were granted the benefits under G.O. Rt. No. 121, dated 09.03.2018, and G.O. Rt. No. 577, dated 15.09.2017, and the said G.Os were duly implemented in their favour. However, despite the clear and positive directions granted by this Court in favour of the petitioners herein on 28.03.2024, their representations dated 05.01.2012, 05.05.2019, 16.02.2021 and as well as the recent representation made in August 2023, seeking implementation of G.O. Rt. No. 121, dated 09.03.2018, have not been considered as on date and the same amounts to clear discrimination and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the present writ petition. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. No. 121, dated 09.03.2018, have not been considered as on date and the same amounts to clear discrimination and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the present writ petition. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, do not dispute that the subject issue is squarely covered by the orders of this Court dated 30.04.2019 passed in W.P. No. 9592 of 2019, the order dated 04.10.2021 passed in W.P. No. 23362 of 2021, and the order dated 01.10.2021 passed in W.P. No. 13959 of 2021 and therefore, the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the said earlier orders of this Court. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments further contended that the submissions put forth in the writ petition are based merely on apprehensions and in view of the fact as borne on record that the benefits in question have already been extended, as evident from the material document/proceedings vide R.C.No. 25/SMDAD/2018, dated 09.08.2018, in respect of one Sri K.Yarranna, filed as Ex.P.13 in support of the petitioners’ case. It is also submitted that similar benefits have been extended to the petitioners in W.P. No. 9592 of 2019, W.P. No. 23362 of 2021, and W.P. No. 13959 of 2021. The representations of the petitioners, regarding the grievance put forth therein, will be considered by the respondents herein, and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance to law within a reasonable period. 10. This Court opines that petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in view of the observations of the Apex Court in its recent judgments pertaining to regularization of service of employees (referred to and extracted below). A) The judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.12.2024, reported in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jaggo Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant paragraph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder: “ 12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)] serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years should be considered for regularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/ back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post- retiral benefits.” B) The Judgment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2025 reported in 2025 INSC 144 in “SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD”, in particular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: “15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer’s failure to furnish such records— despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms. 19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.” C) The Judgment of the Apex Court dated 19.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018 reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1735 in “Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another”, in particular, the relevant para Nos.13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are extracted hereunder: “13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 17. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. “19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/ her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/ retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 11. Few more significant judgments of the Apex Court pertaining to the regularization of services of employees are discussed below:- A) Para No.53 of the of the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated 10.04.2006 reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:- "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ 1967 (1) SCR 128 ], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [ 1979 (4) SCC 507 ] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... B. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Punjab and others vs Jagjit Singh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-paras (1)(2)(3), of the said judgment observed as under: “54 “The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- “(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.” C. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2010 (9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, paras 4 to 9 reads as under: 4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 ). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ 1967 (1) SCR 128 ], R.N. Nanjundappa [ 1972 (1) SCC 409 ] and B.N. Nagarajan [ 1979 (4) SCC 507 ] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 6. The term ` one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. 8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/ instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure. 9. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure. 9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter. 10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. D. In the judgment of the Apex Court in Nihal Singh and others v. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to accept the defence that there were no sanctioned posts and so there was justification for the State to utilise services of large number of people like the appellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referring to Umadevi, it held that the appellants before them were not arbitrarily chosen, their initial appointment was not an 'irregular' appointment as it had been made in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to say that they are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as, according to it, their appointments were purely temporary and not against any sanctioned posts created by the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Punjab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a practice inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance with the Constitution. E. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivalusu and others v Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480 . F. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported (2015) 8 SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that ‘The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure security of employment of those persons who had served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten years”. In that case, employee was working for 29 years. This decision approves earlier view expressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above. G. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223 , similar view was taken by the Supreme Court and it was held as follows : “41…. In view of the categorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent employees have continued in their service for more than 10 years continuously therefore, the legal principle laid down by this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarely applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the respondent employees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court.” H. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024. I. The judgment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 and in particular para Nos.100 and 101 held as follows: “100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. 101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.” 12. This Court opines that the pleas put forth by the respondent No.3 in the additional counter affidavit stating that the petitioners herein are not appointed by the competent authority in terms of the statutory rules in the subject temple either on contract/ consolidated/ NMR basis cannot be the ground to deny the request of the petitioners for regularization of the petitioners’ service and for grant of benefit of equal pay for equal work as per the observations of the Apex Court in the recent judgments (referred to and extracted above) and other significant judgments of the Apex Court pertaining to the subject issue of regularization of service of employees (referred to and extracted above). 13. 13. This Court further opines that the respondents cannot discriminate the petitioners and deny the request of the petitioners for regularization of services of petitioners and for release of other consequential benefits as extended to similarly situated persons like the petitioners in view of the specific observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments given below: A) The Apex Court in its judgment reported in 2021 (6) ALD 285 (SC) Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association Vs National Textile Corporation Ltd and others, 2021 (6) ALD 285 (SC) 4 very clearly observed that the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is vested in favour of person, who claims equality and parity, and therefore, it is enforceable against state instrumentalities in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution and further when equals are treated unequally, there is violation of Article 14. The equality is a definite concept and those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment. Paras 9(c) and 9(d) of the said judgment reads as under: “9(C)The submission on behalf of the respondents more particularly learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the appellant Association – 318 ex-employees have no legal right and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no legal duty has no substance and cannot be accepted. Right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is vested right in favour of the person who claims equality and parity and the same is enforceable against State / State instrumentalities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find no justification at all in treating 318 ex- employees different from those 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. We find that as such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief sought even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9(D) The concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws emerges from the fundamental right expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality is a definite concept. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. 9(D) The concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws emerges from the fundamental right expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality is a definite concept. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongst equals. Classification is therefore to be founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and such differential attributes must bear in just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In a given case Article 14 of the Constitution may permit a valid classification. However, a classification to be followed must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. In the present case allotment of 200 Sq.Yards free of cost to 134 employees was to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure. As observed hereinabove those 318 ex- employees who are denied the 5 benefit of allotment of 200 Sq.Yards of plots free of cost are similarly placed persons with that of 134 employees who are allotted 200 Sq.Yards plots free of cost. There is no rationale justification in providing differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed with another class of ex-employees who are allotted the plots.” B) The Apex Court in its Judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Aravind Kumar Srivastava and Others, dated 17.10.2014 in Civil Appeal No.9849 of 2014 in the particular paragraph given below “(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.” 14. This Court opines that petitioners cannot be discriminated since it is not disputed even by the respondents herein that the same benefit had already been extended to the persons working in other temples, but however the same had been denied to the petitioners herein on a very unreasonable ground that the petitioners had not been appointed by the competent Authority in terms of the Statutory rules in the subject temple either on contract/ consolidated/ NMR basis, the said plea at this length of time after extracting services of the petitioners for more than two decades is not only illegal, arbitrary, but also irrational. 15. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3, c) The proceedings of the Executive Officer, Endowments Department vide R.C.No.25/SMDAD /2018 dated 09.08.2018 (referred to and extracted above), d) The order of this Court dated 28.03.2024 (referred to and extracted above) and, e) The averments made at paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above), f) The observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments (referred to and extracted above), The writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents herein to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 05.01.2012, 05.05.2019 and 16.02.2021 addressed to the respondents, seeking implementation of G.O. Rt. No. 121, dated 09.03.2018 and for regularization of petitioners’ services and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, taking into account long length of service rendered by the petitioners herein and petitioners’ seniority duly examining the relevant documents in support of the petitioners’ case and further consider the request of the petitioners for grant of arrears of pay attached to the posts held by them, including annual grade increments as and when they fell due, in accordance with G.O. Rt. No. 577, dated 15.09.2017 duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and also the fact as borne on record which is not disputed even by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the said benefit had been extended to the similarly situated persons like the petitioners in W.P. No. 9592 of 2019, W.P. No. 23362 of 2021, and W.P. No. 13959 of 2021, referred to at para No.8 of the present order, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners herein on petitioners representation dated 09.07.2023 and 13.07.2023 to the petitioners herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.