The State, acting as a model employer, cannot indefinitely utilize daily-wage laborers for perennial public functions while denying regularization; prolonged engagement in essential duties creates an equitable right to regular status, rendering arbitrary denials of regularization unconstitutional under Articles 14, 16, and 21.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 14, 16 and 21 - Regularization of daily wage / NMR employees - State as model employer - Duty to organize work on lawful lines - Exploitation of employees who have rendered long years of service - Need to regularize services of employees performing perennial duties. (Paras 12, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were engaged as Non-Mustered Roll (NMR) workers, Typists, and Time Scale employees in various departments of the Andhra Pradesh government starting between 1987 and 1989. Despite serving for over two decades, their requests for regularization were rejected by the Administrative Tribunal on the ground that they had not fulfilled the criteria of 5 years of continuous service as of 25.11.1993, as per governmental orders at the time. The petitioners challenged these dismissals.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents had engaged in exploitative ad-hoc employment practices for decades. Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the requirement of long-term continuous service in perennial roles necessitates regularization.

Issues: Whether the denial of regularization for employees who have served for over two decades in perennial roles despite lacking the prescribed 5-year service record by 1993 is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi: The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on technicalities or arbitrary cut-off dates to avoid its constitutional obligation to provide fair employment for perennial work. When work is extracted for decades, the failure to regularize acts as an instrument of state exploitation, violating the principles of fairness and the constitutional promise of equal protection.

Result: Writ Petitions allowed; Direction to regularize services within two months.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and facts regarding denial of regularization to long-term nmr/ad-hoc employees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. application of supreme court precedents regarding the prohibition of exploitative long-term temporary employment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. constitutional obligation of the state to regularize employees engaged in perennial duties to prevent exploitation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

Writ Petition No.44902 of 2018 is filed challenging the common order, dated 31.05.2017 in O.A.No.1222 of 2015 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad.

Writ Petition No. 31806 of 2018 is filed challenging the order, dated 20.07.2018 in O.A.No.1431 of 2018 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad.

Writ Petition No. 45705 of 2018 is filed challenging the order, dated 15.11.2018 in O.A.No.2466 of 2018 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad.

As the issue that arises for consideration in all these three cases are inter-related, they are heard and are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. Submissions of the writ petitioners:

(a) The petitioner in O.A.No.1222 of 2015 has rendered his services as a Work Inspector (Non Technical Assistant/ Technical Assistant) over a period of more than twenty (20) years in the Telugu Ganga Project Division, Allagadda, Kurnool District.

(b) The petitioner in O.A.No.1431 of 2018 has worked as a Typist on NMR basis in the Telugu Ganga Project Division No.II, Mamillapalli, Kadapa. He worked from 28.08.1987 to 30.11.1987. Subsequently, his services were terminated and taken back in the year 1990 and since then, he continued in the said post.

(c) The petitioner Nos.1 to 37 in O.A.No.2466 of 2018 are working as Time Scale Employees appointed in the year 1989 in various cadres on different dates as NMRs and are continuing in services.

(d) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they are working in various cadres in the respondent establishment and drawing minimum time scale + D.A attached to the regular post as per G.O.Ms.No.79, I & CAD (Ser.V.2), Department, dated 22.05.2009. In spite of putting more than 10, 20 years of service by the petitioners, the respondents have not considered for regularization of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner have not completed five (05) years of service by the cut off date 25.11.1993. It is further contended that the respondents have regularized the services of similarly situated persons vide G.O.Ms.No.26, I & CAD (Ser.V) Department, dated 06.02.2001.

3. Submissions of the respondents:

(a) Basing on the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioners who were allowed minimum time scale of pay + D.A. as per G.O.Ms.No.79, I&CAD (Ser.V.2) Department, dated 22.05.2009 are not eligible for regularization of their services, since they have not completed five (05) years of service as on 25.11.1993, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 F&P Department, dated 22.04.1994.

(b) Learned counsel for the respondent also submit that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services in view of the A.P. Act 2 of 1994, as the Act prohibits regularization of services of daily wage employees and temporary employees appointed and continuing prior to the commencement of the said act and the same was confirmed by the Apex Court vide orders, dated 06.07.2009 in Civil Appeal No.3702/2006 and batch. The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services and accordingly, dismissed the O.As., filed by the petitioners.

5. On hearing the learned counsel appearing on either sides, this Court gave anxious consideration t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16305

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHBattu Devanand, Subhendu Samanta, JJK.Srinivas – AppellantVersusThe State of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentWRIT PETITION Nos.44902|31806|45705 of 2018

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Battu Devanand, Subhendu Samanta, JJ
K.Srinivas – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos.44902|31806|45705 of 2018