WP/22210/2017 of K.Nageshwara Rao, Vs The Telangana State Handloom Weavers Co-operative on 8 September 2026

O R D E R:

Petitioner claims to have been appointed on 01.06.1989 as a clerk in the Respondent society; himself along with three other employees filed Writ Petition No. 22287 of 2014 seeking regularization of services, in terms of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1 with all consequential benefits. It is stated, the said Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 10.11.2014 directing respondents to regularize the services of petitioners in terms of 1 (2010) 9 SCC 247

the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2015 filed thereagainst was dismissed on 23.02.2015; thereafter, respondents issued proceedings dated 11.08.2015 regularizing the services of petitioner as Junior Manager instead of Junior Assistant with effect from 10.11.2014.

1.1. The case of petitioner is that he had put in a total 17 years of continuous service by the date of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment, therefore he is entitled to be regularized in service at least from the date of the Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 10.04.2006. Further, since petitioner was regularised in service as Junior Manager instead of Junior Assistant, he is stated to have made representation dated 18.03.2017 to the 1st Respondent which is still pending without any response. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, it is stated that respondent Society had implemented the Supreme Court order dated 10.04.2006 with all consequential benefits, vide proceedings dated 11.08.2015 regularizing services of petitioner in the post of Junior Manager from 10.11.2014 i.e. from the date of Orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 22287 of 2012 on 10.11.2014. This respondent denied the contention of petitioner that his Juniors were regularized in terms of Supreme Court Orders since petitioner has not adduced any proof that the Juniors were regularized in terms of the Apex Court orders.

2.1. As regards regularizing the services in the post of Junior Manager, it is stated that respondent Society is vested power to utilize the services of employees of administrative wing and from Commercial side to Administrative wing. Here, respondent Society has been utilizing the services of petitioner in Administrative wing; he was paid equal wages while working as Daily Wager with other three employees also. The other three employees i.e. petitioners in Writ Petition No. 22287 of 2012 namely 1) P. Kavitha 2) N. Venkata Subbaiah 3) M.V.S Kusuma have been regularized in the post of Junior Manager.

3. In reply, it is stated by petitioner that he did not state that his juniors were regularized in terms of the Supreme Court judgment, but he only stated that his juniors were already regularized. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed in 1989, but his services were regularized in 2014 instead of 2006 in spite of clear directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 22287 of 2014. It is further stated, Durgam Rajender filed Writ Petition No. 33802 of 2015 seeking regularization and the said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court on 08.08.2022.

Consequently, the said order was implemented by respondent, therefore, respondent cannot discriminate one person to another in same department. Therefore, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent to regularize his services from the date of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment i.e. from 10.04.2006.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy submits that the fundamental principle set out in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi reiterated in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari2 mandates that irregular appointments of qualified persons who have worked for 10 consecutive years ought to be regularized as a one-time measure. According to learned counsel, petitioner completed 10 years of service as early as 1999 and met all eligible conditions. Despite fulfilling the criteria, he is claiming regularization only from 10.04.2006-the cut-off date mandated by the Constitution Bench. Granting regularization from 10.11.2014 (date of court order) instead of 10.04.2006 defeats the substantive benefit envisioned under the Umadevi framework.

4.1. Learned counsel submits that juniors of petitioner were regularized prior to him. For instance, Smt. M. Kalavathi, who was appointed in 1992 (3 years after Petitioner's appointment in 1989), was regularized in 2009. Delaying the 2 (2010) 9 SCC 247

Petitioner's effective regularization date to 2014 penalizes the Petitioner for no fault of his own and it is nothing but discriminatory treatment. It is also submitted, pursuant to the order in Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2015, services of Durgam Rajender (W.P. No. 33802 of 2015, allowed on 08.08.2022), were regularized and restricting Petitioner's regularization of service from 2014 constitutes hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard Sri T. Rajanikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of respondents.

6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident, earlier, petitioner along with three others filed Writ Petition No. 22287 of 2012 seeking regularization of their services forthwith on par with their juniors in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (supra) with all consequential benefits. Though in the said Writ Petition, the Society had taken the stand that as petitioners were appointed only on daily wage basis, they cannot seek regularization of their services, this Court, keeping in view the fact that petitioners therein rendered service for more than 25 years, their appointments is not illegal, hence, in terms of the ratio laid down in Uma Devi’s case, they are eligible to be considered for regularization of services and they did not lose their right for regularization on the premise of completion of one-time exercise. Further, there is no denial of the fact that the services of juniors of petitioners have been considered for regularization. In that view of the matter, by order dated 10.11.2014, the Writ Petition was allowed and respondents were directed to regularize the services of petitioners in terms of the ratio laid down in Umadevi and M.L. Kesari. Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2015 preferred by the Society against the said order was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. In the said judgment, it was observed that petitioner’s services were terminated sometime in 1995 and the said termination was challenged before the authority concerned under Section 48(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. Their challenge was upheld vide order dated 03.11.1997 with a direction to reinstate them into service with full back wages and all attendant benefits. The Appeal filed there against was dismissed by order dated 12.10.1998. The order of the authority under Section 48(1) was however confirmed by this Court and thereafter, the Society approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.04.200; in that backdrop, the learned Single Judge had given benefit of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) and issued direction to regularize the services of respondents. In the Writ Appeal, though learned counsel for the Society had taken the stand that Umadevi is not applicable since at no point of time, they completed ten years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006, the Division Bench observed that termination was ultimately held to be illegal and they were given all attendant benefits including back-wages that they completed ten years of continuous service as one 10.04.2006. Thus holding, the Writ Appeal was dismissed.

7. Despite the clear and categorical finding and observations given by the Division Bench, the respondent Society regularized the services of petitioner from the date of the order in Writ Petition No. 22287 of 2012 i.e. 10.11.2014 in the post of Junior Manager. This Court therefore, holds that respondents have acted contrary to the directions issued by this Court earlier, hence, is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to be regularized in service with effect from 10.04.2006, in terms of the judgments in Umadevi and M.L. Kesari. The Writ Petition therefore, deserves to be allowed.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. Respondents are directed to regularize the services of petitioner as Junior Manager from 10.04.2006 with all consequential benefits including the difference of wages. No costs.

9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 08th September 2026 ksld