In a decision that closed a decades-long legal struggle, the Telangana High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by T. Padma, a sweeper from Hanamkonda, who had been fighting for regularisation of her services and payment of arrears since the early 1990s. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, held that her engagement was neither continuous nor eligible under the rules framed by the government.
Background
Padma’s story began in 1993, when she was engaged as a sweeper under the Hanamkonda Tahsildar’s office. Her appointment was temporary, yet she continued to seek recognition as a regular employee over the years.
In 2016, she once again approached the High Court, leading to an order directing the authorities to consider her representation. Acting on this, the District Collector of Warangal Urban issued a detailed order on June 18, 2021, rejecting her request.
The Collector cited G.O.Ms.No.212 (dated April 22, 1994) - a government order that allowed regularisation only for employees who had completed five years of continuous service by November 25, 1993. Padma, having joined in May 1993, fell short of this condition.
Her engagement was later discontinued in September 2000, though she received arrears up to 2009 following an Administrative Tribunal direction. Unwilling to give up, she challenged the Collector’s order in a fresh writ petition, but the single judge dismissed it on March 24, 2025.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench noted that Padma had approached courts multiple times - first through the Administrative Tribunal, later the High Court - yet she had failed to establish that she was continuously engaged since 1993.
“The appellant has not been able to show continuous engagement since 1993 till 2016,” the bench remarked, adding that none of the required conditions for regularisation were satisfied.
The Court also referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006), which held that only employees who had worked for ten continuous years without court intervention and against sanctioned posts could be considered for regularisation.
“The ratio in Uma Devi applies only when these ingredients are proved,” the bench said, observing that Padma’s case did not meet even the basic threshold.
Decision
After reviewing all records, the High Court upheld the Collector’s and the Single Judge’s reasoning, concluding that Padma’s employment was not regular or continuous and that the authorities had followed the correct procedure under the law.
“The learned writ court rightly refused to interfere,” the judges stated while dismissing the appeal. They, however, made no order as to costs, bringing an end - at least for now - to Padma’s three-decade pursuit for recognition.
The bench closed all pending miscellaneous applications, effectively putting a legal full stop to the long-drawn employment dispute.
Case Title: T. Padma vs The Tahsildar, Hanamkonda & Others
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 1148 of 2025
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2025