Back
"Nothing But Exploitation": AP High Court Orders Regularisation for Workers Denied Permanency for Decades
In a scathing rebuke of the Andhra Pradesh government's employment practices, the has directed the regularization of long-serving workers, typists, and assistants in the . A Division Bench of Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand and Hon’ble Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed Writ Petitions Nos. 44902, 31806, and 45705 of 2018, overturning orders from the . The lead case, , highlights how state departments exploited workers for over three decades by paying meager wages while extracting full-time labor.
From NMRs to Perpetual Limbo: The Workers' Long Wait
The petitioners—ranging from a Work Inspector with over 20 years in the , to a typist rehired in after a brief stint in , and 37 time-scale employees appointed in —sought regularization after continuous service. Despite granting them minimum time-scale pay plus DA in 2009, their pleas were rejected by the Tribunal for not meeting the five-year service cut-off as of under and .
Existing vacancies in the departments went unfilled, yet the workers performed essential, perennial duties. As the court noted,
"If there is no work to extract for them, the respondents are not supposed to continue them to work in their departments for the years together."
Petitioners' Cry vs. State's Cut-Off Defense
The workers argued they deserved regularization per Supreme Court directives in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (para 53), which mandates consideration for those with 10+ years' service by . They highlighted similar regularizations under and urged equity, given their direct engagement without contractors.
Respondents countered that the petitioners missed the 1993 cut-off, invoking Umadevi to bar regularization of pre-1994 daily wage hires, as affirmed in Civil Appeal No.3702/2006. They claimed no entitlement absent five years' service by the deadline and no proof of sanctioned posts.
Supreme Court Precedents Tip the Scales Against ""
The High Court dissected
Umadevi
, distinguishing "illegal" from "irregular" appointments and rejecting its use as a
"shield to justify exploitative engagements."
It heavily relied on recent Supreme Court rulings:
- Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 INSC 144): Direct control, no contractor evidence, and perennial work negate outsourcing claims; perpetual daily wages for essential roles is unfair.
- Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025 INSC 998): States can't refuse sanctioned posts despite acknowledged needs; Umadevi doesn't endorse long-term precariousness.
- : Critiques misuse of temporary labels for permanent work, emphasizing constitutional duties under .
The Bench echoed views in
and
, calling the state a "
" that must avoid
"slavery of its own citizens"
and act as a "
."
Crucially, the court found no non-sanctioned post issue, noting vacancies and decades of service rendered age-barred fresh recruitment impossible.
Key Observations: The Court's Blunt Critique
The judgment brims with powerful rebukes:
"It appears the respondents without taking steps to fill the sanctioned vacancies on permanent basis by following proper selection procedure, utilized the services of the petitioners for all these years by paying meager remuneration/wages which amounts to nothing but exploitation."
"These petitioners have accepted such unfair treatment only with a hope that at some point of time their claim for regularization could be considered. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to languish as daily rated employees for indefinite period and be denied of the regular benefits of the Government employees forever."
"The Government being the has to keep all these aspects in their mind... The present cases are a classic example for illegal and arbitrary actions of the employers."
These observations, mirroring media reports on the ruling, underscore how such practices erode public trust and violate Article 21's right to livelihood.
A Directive for Relief: Regularisation and Beyond
The Writ Petitions stand allowed. Respondents must regularize the petitioners' services with consequential benefits within two months of the order—no costs ordered.
This ruling sets a precedent against indefinite ad-hoc hiring in government departments, prioritizing equity for long-serving workers over rigid cut-offs. It signals to states: perennial work demands permanent status, shielding vulnerable employees from exploitation and reinforcing the 's constitutional mandate. Future cases may invoke it to challenge similar delays, potentially easing vacancies while upholding recruitment fairness.
