ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare, Standing Counsel for NIMS and Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the rejection orders dated 15/09/2021 in Rc.No.HR6/235/2011/NSCK passed by the Respondent No.2 not regularising the services of the petitioners herein on par with the similar class IV employees vide R.C.No.6/2/DW/92/03 dated 30/08/2003 orders, vide G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22/04/1994, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides the Law declared by the Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi case mandating periodic regular recruitment to the sanctioned posts and prays to direct the Respondents herein to regularise the petitioners herein forthwith on par with the already regularised similar daily wage employees vide G.O.Ms.No.212 with all consequential monetary benefits including Minimum Time Scale of Pay by implementing the consent order passed in W.P.No.19225 of 2020 in the interest of justice and pass…” 3. The case of the petitioners in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:- The petitioners herein are the daily wage employees of Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), Hyderabad, and are in service since three decades. The petitioners earlier filed W.P.No.16260 of 2021 questioning the action of the respondents in not regularizing their services on par with the similar class IV employees vide orders R.C.No.6/2/DW/92/03 dated 30.08.2003 according to G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. This Court disposed of W.P.No.16260 of 2021 with a direction to the petitioners to submit fresh representation to respondents and on submitting such representation the respondents were directed to consider the same in accordance with law in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted representations on 30.08.2021 to respondent No.2, and same were rejected by respondent No.2 vide impugned proceedings dated 15.09.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted representations on 30.08.2021 to respondent No.2, and same were rejected by respondent No.2 vide impugned proceedings dated 15.09.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- (A) The relevant portion of the impugned Proceedings vide HR6/ 235/ 2011/ NSCK, dated 15.09.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 to one of the petitioners is extracted hereunder:- The Writ petition filed by the individual vide W.P.No.16260/2021 was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court by order dated 17.08.2021, the operative portion of the said order reads thus: “… this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a representation afresh within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider the same in terms of the judgment of the apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.” The individual/ petitioner was appointed on daily wages through a Contractor on outsourcing basis by calling for tenders. You are working under the Contractor and not under the management of NI MS. As such, there is no employee – employer relationship between him and the NIMS. Further G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, it is applicable for regularization and absorption of DW & NMR or consolidated pay workers only. It is not applicable for the workers engaged by the Labour Contractor on outsourcing basis. As far as your contention that your services were not regularized on par with the similarly situated Class IV employees whose services were regularized vide Rc.No.6/2/BW/92/03, dated 30.08.2003, is concerned, the said persons were appointed against the Notification issued by the Institute on 19.11.2001, basing on need and requirement and as per the recommendations of the Selection Committee. As far as your contention that your services were not regularized on par with the similarly situated Class IV employees whose services were regularized vide Rc.No.6/2/BW/92/03, dated 30.08.2003, is concerned, the said persons were appointed against the Notification issued by the Institute on 19.11.2001, basing on need and requirement and as per the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The crux of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court is that, “the respondents shall consider the same in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.” In this regard, the individual is informed that as hisappointment was not by NI MS by following the procedurefor recruitment of employees by issuing a Notification andas the individual was appointed by the Contractor as adaily wage employee, he is not entitled for regularizationand the said Judgment has no application to his case.In State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC Page 1., the Apex Court held as under: “8. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled. Similarly, in Harminder Kaur v. Union of India reported in (2009) 13 SCC 90 , the Supreme Court held that the long service rendered by ad hoc employees cannot be a ground for regularization and regularization cannot be a mode of appointment. Even on the question of age relaxation of such appointees for being consi8dered for future recruitment, the Supreme Court only gave a non binding direction to the respondents/State to consider such issues on their own. Even the clarification given in paragraph (53) of the Uma Devi (3) case, (cited supra) that as a one time measure regularization can be restored to, came to be subsequently reinterpreted in Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 4 SCC 179 . Even the clarification given in paragraph (53) of the Uma Devi (3) case, (cited supra) that as a one time measure regularization can be restored to, came to be subsequently reinterpreted in Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 4 SCC 179 . In that case, the Supreme Court held that in Uma Devi (3) case, supra, the Constitutional Bench has drawn a distinction between temporary employees, daily wagers, and those who were appointed irregularly, in the sense that there was non compliance with the procedure in selection process and they did not go through the selection process and in such cases, inspiration cannot be taken from paragraph (53) of the Uma Devi (3) case, supra. In Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (Balasubramanyan. J), reported in 2006 (4) SCALE 197 dealing with the case in which employees were engaged tempoprarily at daily wages basis in commercial tax department of the management, wherein they claimed that they had worked for more than 10 years and hence they were entitled to be made permanent employees of the management to be entitled to all benefits of a government employee, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “ Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf.” In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. JT 2006 (10) SC 216 while dealing with the case of 10 casual daily rated workers who were appointed on compassionate basis and were continued in employment for a long time, Labour Court gave an award in their favour regularizing their services. In writ petition Hon’ble High Court held that they were not entitled to regularization but they were held entitled to be continued in service. Hon’ble Apex Court deprecated such employment as “back door entry” or “litigious employment” and observed that a person employed on daily wages accepts such employment with open eyes knowing fully well the nature of his employment and the consequences flowing from it. So, even if, he continued in employment for a long time, it does not give him right to ask for regularization on the basis of his long employment. It was held that he cannot claim to be treated at p[art with regular employees. So, even if, he continued in employment for a long time, it does not give him right to ask for regularization on the basis of his long employment. It was held that he cannot claim to be treated at p[art with regular employees. "While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person ID NO.337/2006 concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arm's length since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible.” In view of the settled law, the case of the individual cannot be considered for regularization. Hence, rejected.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court on 09.11.2022 in W.P.No.173 of 2022, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 04.09.2023 in W.A.No.563 of 2023 and upheld by the Apex Court on 10.11.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.24844 of 2023 in Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences and another v. Eshwar Singh and others and since the petitioners in the present writ petition are similarly situated like the petitioners in W.P.No.173 of 2022, as such, the petitioners are entitled for the same relief as extended by this Court in W.P.No.173 of 2022 vide orders dated 09.11.2022. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the NIMS appearing on behalf of respondents does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 7. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the NIMS appearing on behalf of respondents does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 7. This Court in W.P.No.173 of 2022 where NIMS the respondent herein is alleged as 2 nd respondent wherein the petitioners thereunder challenged the rejection order dated 03.09.2021 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the request of the petitioners for regularization of their services on par with similarly placed class IV employees as illegal and arbitrary at its Judgment dated 09.11.2022 at paras 11 to 14, observed as under: “11. The Single Bench of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.47675 of 2018, had considered this issue at length and after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi and the subsequent judgments on the issue has held that the introduction of interdictory agency/contractor between the organization and the outsourcing employees like the petitioners therein is only a device adopted by the GHMC to exploit the petitioners by denying them the benefits available to regular employees such as scales of pay, leave, medical benefits, promotions, increments and other services benefits and the GHMC cannot be allowed to perpetuate this violation of law and therefore, it is not permissible to respondents therein to take shelter under Act 2 of 1992 to deny regularization tothe petitioners, who have admittedly satisfied the criteria laid down in Para 53 of the Judgment in Umadevi (cited supra). 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this judgment has not been challenged by the respondents therein and therefore, it has become final. Even from the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is noticed that the respondents have not made any regular appointments to the posts in which the petitioners have been working on contract basis from the year 1990 onwards. Therefore, it is clear that they have adopted the method of outsourcing only to deny the petitioners the benefits of regularization. 13. In view of the same, the impugned order rejecting the requests of the petitioners is clearly not sustainable. The respondents are therefore, directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularization and pass orders of regularization of their services with effect from the date of their eligibility with all consequential benefits. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 13. In view of the same, the impugned order rejecting the requests of the petitioners is clearly not sustainable. The respondents are therefore, directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularization and pass orders of regularization of their services with effect from the date of their eligibility with all consequential benefits. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” The said Judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.173 of 2022 had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide its Judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.A.No.563 of 2023. The relevant para No.’6’ of the said Judgment is extracted hereunder: “6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the subject Writ Petition in favour of the unofficial respondents, as admittedly, the appellants have not considered the case of the unofficial respondents in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Umadevi ’s case (supra 1), except referring to the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and extracting certain paragraphs of the said judgments. The appellants have mechanically rejected the cases of the unofficial respondents with an observation that in view of the settled law, the cases of the unofficial respondents cannot be considered for regularisation of their services. Except making the above observation, merits of the case were not discussed by the appellants. Since it is an admitted fact that the unofficial respondents were working with the appellants for more than three decades, the services of the unofficial respondents deserve to be regularised in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Umadevi ’s case (supra 1). Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 09.11.2022. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.” 8. The same had been upheld by the Apex Court on 10.11.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.24844 of 2023 in NI MS and another v. Eshwar Singh and others”. Therefore this Court opines that petitioners herein are entitled for grant of similar relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P.No.173 of 2022 vide orders dated 09.11.2022. 9. The same had been upheld by the Apex Court on 10.11.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.24844 of 2023 in NI MS and another v. Eshwar Singh and others”. Therefore this Court opines that petitioners herein are entitled for grant of similar relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P.No.173 of 2022 vide orders dated 09.11.2022. 9. Few recent Judgments pertaining to the Law laid down by the Apex Court and the observations thereunder pertaining to regularization of services of employees are extracted hereunder: 10. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 11. The Judgment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2025 reported in 2025 INSC 144 in “SHRI PAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZI ABAD”, in particular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: “15. I t 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. I ndian 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. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or 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. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage 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. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms. 19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.” 12. The Apex Court in its Judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018 in “DHARAM SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER”, in particular, at para Nos.13, 17, 18 and 20, is observed as under: “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. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long- term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the 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. 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 I ndia.” 13. This Court opines that petitioner is entitled for consideration of petitioner’s case for grant of the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition in view of the Judgment of this Court dated 09.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.173 of 2022 which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide its Judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.A.No.563 of 2023 and also the Apex Court vide its Judgment dated 10.11.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.24844 of 2023 and also the observations of the Apex Court in its very recent judgments (referred to and extracted above). 14. 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 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 14. 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 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The order passed by this Court on 09.11.2022 in W.P.No.173 of 2022 in favour of the petitioners thereunder that was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 04.09.2023 in W.A.No.563 of 2023 and upheld by the Apex Court on 10.11.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.24844 of 2023, d) The contents of the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.HR6/ 235/ 2011/ NSCK dated 15.09.2021 issued by the Executive Registrar, NI MS, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, e) The earlier orders passed by this Court in favour of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16260 of 2021 and W.P.No.19225 of 2020. f) The observations of the Apex Court in its very recent judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: (i) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209, dated 20.12.2024 (ii) 2025 INSC 144 dated 31.01.2025 (iii) CA No.8558 of 2018, SCC dated 19.08.2025 The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.HR6/ 235/ 2011/NSCK dated 15.09.2021 issued by the Executive Registrar, NI MS, Punjagutta, Hyderabad rejecting the request of the petitioners for regularization of the services of the petitioners herein on par with similarly situated class IV employees is set aside and the 2 nd respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularization with effect from their eligibility with all consequential benefits duly taking into consideration the orders dated 09.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.173 of 2022 which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide its Judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.A.No.563 of 2023 and the same which had been confirmed vide Judgment of the Apex Court dated 10.11.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.24844 of 2023 and also the observations of the Apex Court in its very recent Judgments referred to and extracted above and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance to law and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.