The court held that the respondents cannot deny the relief of regularization to the petitioners as per para 53 of the decision in Umadevi’s case, which permits one time exercise of regularization to be done for personnel employed on a temporary basis/daily wages etc, who have rendered continuous service for more than 10 years.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services II and learned standing counsel for respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the Proceedings No. 37/CPR&RE/C2/2015, dated 27.10.2015 in not regularizing the service of the petitioners as regularized the service of the one of the members of the union Md. Masood Ali, Bore-well Mechanic, working on the basis of NMR at both, Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No.182, dated 14.03.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, highly discriminatory, unjust, unfair, irrational, unconstitutional, unlawful and against to Articles 12, 14, 16, 19, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and against to the principles of natural justice and against to the G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994 and against to a catena of Judgments of the Apex Court and set aside the same, Consequently direct the 1st respondent to regularize the service of the petitioners as regularized the service of the colleague of the Petitioners Sri Md. Masood Ahmed, Bore well Mechanic working on the basis of NMR basis at both Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No.182, dated 14.03.2017.

3. The case of the petitioners in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioners, having completed their Technical Qualification (I.T.I) were appointed through various proceedings by Respondents 10 to 14 as Bore well mechanic.

b) Despite petitioners providing better services and working hard, they were neither paid lawful wages nor were they absorbed and regularized by Respondents.

c) Many representations were made to the respondents to pay lawful salary to the petitioner, but no action was taken by the respondents.

d) Despite being appointed as Bore Well Mechanics on N.M.R basis few decades ago, they were neither absorbed nor paid lawful salary for the past 2 (Two) decades. In the past, they were abruptly and without notice, were orally instructed not to attend their duties. Aggrieved by such decision, they have filed W.P. No 40210 of 2015 before this court and this court was pleased to pass orders directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

e) Subsequently, W.P. No. 14145 of 2016 was filed against the respondents for not considering the representations of Borewell Mechanics Union of the State and the High Court had passed orders on 25.04.2016 directing the respondents to consider the representation of Borewell Mechanics Union of the State and pass appropriate orders within Eight Weeks. As no orders were passed , Contempt Case No. 1908 of 2016 has been filed. After filing of said contempt case, the respondents passed orders without considering the quantum of law, vide proceedings No. 37/CPR&RE/C2/2015 dated 27.10.2016. Instead of regularizing all the members in service, only one Mr. Sri Masood Ali, has been regularized in the service through G.O.Rt.No.182 dated 14.03.2017. They are highly discriminated against by the Petitioners and even though their Qualification, Nature of Work, Duties and Responsibilities are similar between N.M.R and Regularized employee, they were not regularized and issued Proceeding No.

37/CRP&RE/C2/2015 dated 27.10.2016 and the same is against the Constitution of India. f) The question of Daily wages or Contract Employees is not the question here. When there are similar work and same working conditions, they are entitled to Equal Remuneration for Equal Work and same has been held by the Apex Court in Marathwada Agricultural University and Others vs. Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith M.S.K.S and other (2007) 8 SCC 497 and in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh & others (C.A. No. 213 of 2013 and it’s batch), dated 26.10.2016. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondents 1 to 3, in brief, is as follows:

a)