Sri. Venkatesh Ramanna Valmiki Vs State of Karnataka

1 . SRI. VENKATESH RAMANNA VALMIKI S/O RAMANNA VALMIKI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER, O/O RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION DIVISION, BELGAUM-590001

¶11

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

2 . SRI V TIRUPATHI S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER, O/O RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION DIVISION, BELGAUM-590001

¶13

3 . SRI ADRUSHAPPA SHIVABASAPPA YARAGOPPA S/O SHIVABASAPPA YARAGOPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS WATCHMAN O/O RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION DIVISION, BELGAUM - 590 001.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

4 . SRI SHANKAR BABU MANJILKAR S/O BABU MANJILKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS WATCHMAN O/O RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION DIVISION, BELGAUM - 590 001.

¶17

5 . SRI V GOVINDRAJ S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS WATCHMAN O/O RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION DIVISION, BELGAUM - 590 001.

¶18

6 . SRI MUDDAPPA SUDAPPA S/O SUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS CLEANER, O/O RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION DIVISION, BELGAUM - 590 001.

¶19

7 . SRI VITTAL JEEVAPPA KOLI S/O JEEVAPPA B KOLI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS WATCHMAN, O/O PRE SUB DIVISION KHANAPUR, BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 302.

¶20

8 . SRI VASUDEV SHIVAJI GHADI S/O SHIVAJI GHADI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS MAZDOOR,

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

O/O RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION SUB DIVISION, KHANAPUR, BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 302.

¶24

9 . SRI MOHAMMAD ISA M HALSHIKAR S/O MUGUTSAB HALSHIKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS MAZDOOR, O/O RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION SUB DIVISION, KHANAPUR, BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 302.

¶25

10 . SRI SHARIFFSAB FAKKIRSAB NADAF S/O FAKKIRSAB NADAG, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS CLEANER, O/O PRE SUB DIVISION, BAILAHONGAL, BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 102.

¶26

11 . SRI BASAPPA BHIMAPPA KAMMAR S/O BHIMAPPA KAMMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS ITI MECHANIC O/O PRE SUB DIVISION, BAILAHONGAL, BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 102.

¶27

12 . SRI SHABBIR AHMED MAKTUMSAB SHIRAJVALE, S/O MAKTUMSAB SHIRAJVALE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER, O/O RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION SUB DIVISION,

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

BAILAHONGAL,

¶32

BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 102.

¶33

13 . SRI APPASABA D PAVAR S/O DATTU RAM PAVAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS WATCHMAN, O/O PRE DIVISION, CHIKKODI, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591201

¶34

14 . SRI ARAVINDA N KOUJALAGI S/O NARASIMHACHARYA S.K. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS SDA O/O PRE DIVISION, CHIKKODI, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591201

¶35

15 . SRI RAMESHA

¶36

S/O BOMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER O/O DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, R.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

¶37

16 . SRI S K VIJAYAKUMAR S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER, O/O DIRECTOR MINES NAD GEOLOGY, R.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

¶38

17 . SRI VENKATESH REDDY S/O D GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS DRILLING HELPER, O/O DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY R.C.ROAD,

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

BANGALORE-560001

¶42

18 . SRI SHIVAPPA B PADARA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS DRILLING HELPER O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA KALBURGI-585102

¶43

19 . SRI M SIDDESHA S/O GOWDARA MAYANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS DRILING HELPER O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT CHITRADURGA-577501

¶44

20 . SRI B PUTTANAGOWDA S/O B NAGAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS SDA O/O RFO SOCIAL FORESTRY KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT-587103

¶45

21 . SRI RAJU S/O LAKSHMANA NAIK AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER O/O RFO SOCIAL FORESTRY CHITTAPUR

¶46

KALBURGI DISTRICT-585211

¶47

22 . SRI S MALLIKARJUNA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA ANGADI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS ATTENDER O/O GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL SHIKARIPURA

¶48

SHIMOGA-577427

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

23 . SRI C THIPPARAIAH S/O CHIKKA THIBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS WORKING AS DRIVER O/O JOINT DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE SILK EXCHANGE OKALIPURAM BANGALORE-560 021

¶52

24 . SRI NINGAPPA GUDAGI S/O DEVENDRRAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS HOSTEL WARDEN O/O GOVERNMENT BOYS PRE METRIC HOSTEL NERAGAL HANGAL TALUK HAVERI DIST-581 102

¶53

25 . SRI T SRINIVAS S/O V THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT O/O GOVERNMENT POST METRIC BOYS HOSTEL MULBAGAL KOLAR DISTRICT-591 243

¶54

26 . SRI SAYED ANWAR S/O SAYED AKBAR SAB AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS DRIVER O/O AEE PWD NO.1 SUB DIVISION RAICHUR-572 117

¶55

27 . ZAMEER PASHA S/O RAJASAB

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS LITERATE ASSISTANT O/O AEE PWD NO.1 SUB DIVISION RAICHUR-572 117

¶59

...PETITIONERS

¶60

(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER Nos.P1,P5,P6,P16, P23 TO P27 AND SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE FOR P1, P5, P6 & P22, P7 TO P15, P2 TO P4, P17 TO P21)

¶61

AND:

¶62

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶63

BENGALURU-560 001

¶64

2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRL SECRETARY, D.P.A.R.

¶65

VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶66

BENGALURU-560 001

¶67

3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRL SECRETARY, RDPR M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶68

4 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRL SECRETARY, FOREST, ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

5 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRL SECRETARY, COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶72

6 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRL SECRETARY, PWD DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶73

7 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶74

8 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRL SECRETARY TO GOVT, HORTICULTURE& SERICULLTURE DEPT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001

¶75

...RESPONDENTS

¶76

(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA)

¶77

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO:

¶78

(I) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.03.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE "AG" ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS VIOLATIVE OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.42116-42253 OF 2001 DATED 03.12.2001 VIDE ANNEXURE "B" AND

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP NO.9573 OF 2007 DATED 07.03.2014.

¶83

(II) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASES OF PETITIONERS AND TO REGULARISE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS ON COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS BASED ON THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT ON 07.03.2014 IN THE CASE OF MALTHI DAS (RETIRED) NOW P.B.MAHISHY AND OTHERS VS. SURESH & OTHERS , WHICH IS REPORTED IN (2014) 13 SCC 249 .

¶84

(III) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO EXTEND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS SUCH AS DIFFERENCE OF SALARY INCREMENT AND FIXATION OF SALARY ON REGULARISATION OF SERVICE UPON COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF SERVICE."

¶85

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶86

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶87

10 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

ORAL ORDER

¶91

The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition, seeking for the following reliefs:

¶92

(I) quash the endorsement dated 28.03.2016 vide Annexure "AG" issued by respondent No.3 as violative of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition Nos.42116-42253 of 2001 dated 03.12.2001 vide Annexure "B" and the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.9573 of 2007 dated 07.03.2014.

¶93

(II) direct the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners and to regularise the services of the petitioners on completion of 10 years based on the clarification issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.03.2014 in the case of Malthi Das (retired) now P.B.Mahishy and others vs. Suresh & others , which is reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249 .

¶94

(III) direct the respondent to extend all consequential benefits such as difference of salary increment and fixation of salary on regularisation of service upon completion of 10 years of service."

¶95

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Writ Petition are as follows:

¶96

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

The petitioners are working on a daily basis, and they

¶99

have completed more than 25 to 32 years of service as of now. Most of the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P. Nos.42116-42253 of 2001 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their case on par with the cases of Premakala Shetty, Narasimha Raju etc., for regularisation and for such other relief. This Court, vide Order dated 03.12.2001, disposed of the said writ petitions, by issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P. Nos.42096-42113 of 2001 (Vasudeva Shetty and others vs. State of Karnataka and others) .

¶100

The State Government preferred writ Appeal in W.A. Nos.2598-2735 of 2002 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals vide order dated 14.10.2003.

¶101

12 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

It is averred that Vasudeva Shetty's case (supra) was

¶105

disposed of by this Court by giving effect to the direction of this Court vide Order dated 10.09.1999 passed in WP Nos.33541-33557 of 1998 and connected matters. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.2765-2905 of 2001 vide judgment dated 23.01.2001.

¶106

As against the said judgment, Special Leave Petition was filed in SLP (Civil) CC Nos.7855-7995 of 2001. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP vide order dated 05.11.2001.

¶107

After the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government framed a Scheme dated 19.07.2002 by implementing the order dated 05.11.2001 passed in SLP (Civil) CC Nos.7855-7995 of 2001. Another batch of similarly placed petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions, and the

¶108

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

said writ petitions were disposed of, against which, a writ appeal was preferred. The writ appeals came to be dismissed. The State Government preferred a special leave petition. The said special leave petition came to be dismissed vide Order dated 21.07.2005.

¶111

Pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2005 passed in SLP Nos.109-498 of 2003, one more scheme dated 29.12.2005 was framed by the State Government. Most of the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents for the regularisation of their services. Most of the respondents issued an endorsement dated 28.03.2016 stating that they are not parties to Malti Das case, (referred supra) and the decision rendered in Malti Das case (referred supra) cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned endorsements dated 28.03.2016, vide Annexures "A" and "G", filed this writ petition.

¶112

14 -

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

Heard Sri.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel

¶116

for the petitioners and the Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

¶117

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on a daily basis and employed by the respondents during 1984-1993. He submits that they have completed more than 10 years of service and are only receiving minimum wages. He submits that similarly situated petitioners approached this Court. This Court directed the respondents to consider the case of those petitioners

¶118

in a series of judgments for regularisation. He submits that in some cases, the Government has complied with the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions. However, in the instant case, the respondents have refused to regularize the services of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to Malti Das case (referred supra). The action of the respondents in refusing to

¶119

15 -

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

regularise the services of the petitioners is discriminatory and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

¶123

To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following Orders/judgments of this Court as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the order passed by the Government, which are related to the regularization of the service of the employees:

¶124

Sl. No.	Case Laws
1.	Malathi Das V. Suresh, (2014) 13 SCC 249
2.	State of Karnataka Vs. M M Hooli in SLP (c) 13724/2006
3.	T R Hemavathi Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.Np.36393/1999
4.	Balavant Bharamappa Neli Vs. Commissioner of Collegiate Education in WP Np.27235/1999
5.	C G Jagadeesh Vs. State of Karnataka in WP No.54284/2013
6.	Bengaluru University Vs. Smt. S. Manjula in WP No.5577/2012
7.	State of Karnataka Vs. M L Kesari, 2010(9) SCC 247
8.	Premakala Shetty Vs. Common Cadre Committee in WP No.1338/1998
9.	State of Karnataka Vs. H Ramesh & Ors in WP No.219- 255 of 2003

¶125

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

10.	K P Raju Vs. State of Karnataka in WP No.13858- 13867/2000
11.	Kumbaiah Vs. State of Karnataka in WP No.41420- 421/2003
12.	State of Karnataka Vs. Prema in WP No.46905-47237/2003
13.	State of Karnataka VS. K Bhagyalakshmi in WP No.15716/2013
14.	Sujatha Devi R Vs. State of Karnataka In CCC No.633- 647/2013
15.	Raman Kumar Vs. Union of India in SLP No. 7898/2020
16.	Ravi Verma Vs. Union Of India in Civil Appeal No.2795- 2796/2018
17.	State of Karnataka Vs. Revanna in Civil Appeal No.5292/2019
18.	State of M P Vs. Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya (2014) 11 SCC 694
19.	K O Varkey Vs. State of Karnataka in WP No.3166/2019
20.	K.M. Manjunath Vs. State of Karnataka in WP No.15481/2019
21.	The Director Vs. K.M. Manjunatha in WA No.565/2022
22.	R Jagadeesh Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.35218- 35221/2011
23.	State of Karnataka Vs. R. Jagadeesh in WA No.45/2013
24.	Government order implementing R. Jagadeesh case
25.	Muruga Vs. State of Karnataka in CCC No.299/2021
26.	Jivanalal Vs. Pravin Krishna, PS 2016 (15) SCC 747
27.	Implementation order of Daily wage worker Hussain Sab
28.	Varadaraju Vs. State of Karnataka in WP No.9414-9442

¶128

17 -

¶129

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

29.	Government order dated 01.03.2021 implementing the order passed in 39117-176/1999 in Nagaraju case
30.	Government order regularising services of Kruthika & Ors dated 16.09.2014
31.	Government order regularising services of Sujatadevi & Ors dated 21.04.2022
32.	Government order regularising services of Panduranga & Ors dated 20.03.2018
33.	Government order regularising services of Sadananda & Ors dated 15.11.2018
34.	Government order implementing the order passed in CA No.3338/2014
35.	Government order implementing the order passed in CCC No.538/2005
36.	Government order implementing the order passed in WP No.40447/1999
37.	Government order implementing the order passed in CCC No.903/2005
38.	Government order implementing the order passed in CCC No.1482-97/2004 in Qutubuddin M Gouse
39.	Government order implementing the order passed in Kalakayya case
40.	Government order implementing the order passed in Raghupathy Gowda case
41.	Copy of the regulatisation order or Sujatha Devi
42.	David Edward Vs. State of Karnataka in CCC No.675/2007
43.	Copy of regularisation order of Ayyanna
44.	Copy of the order implementing the order passed in WP No.15915/1999 in K Shashikala case
45.	Girish Vs. State of Karnataka in WP No.201503/2021dated 10.01.2023

¶132

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

46.	Girish Vs. State of Karnataka in CCC No.200096/2023
47.	Copy of the implementation order dated 25.09.2023 in Girish case
48.	Copy of the office order dated 01.01.2015
49.	Copy of the GO implementing the order passed in Suresh and Ors dated 24.11.2015
50.	Purnedu Mukhyopadhyaya Vs. VK Kapoor in 2008 (14) SCC 403
51.	Anil Ratan Sarkar Vs. Hirak Gosh 2002 (4) SCC 21
52.	Sunil Kumar Verma Vs. State of Uttur Pradesh 2016(1)SCC 397
53.	Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda in 2010(5) SCC 708
54.	Bussa Overseas and Properties Vs. Union of India 2016(4) SCC 696
55.	Reliance Communications Ltd., Vs. State Bank of India 2020(17)SCC 528
56.	Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union in CA No.4092-4093/2024
57.	K. Geetha Kamath Vs. State of Karnataka in WP No.20981/2021
58.	the regularisation order in K. Geetha Kamat dated 22.06.2023
59.	the order dated 10.02.2024
60.	the regularisation order dated 20.05.2023
61.	the regularisation order dated 22.06.2016
62.	the regularisation order dated 30.04.2016
63.	the regularisation order dated 01.10.1999
64.	the regularisation order dated 24.08.2020

¶135

19 -

¶136

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

65.	the regularisation order dated 21.02.2018
66.	the regularisation order dated 28.05.2021
67.	State of Karnataka Vs. Mayanna Gowda in WP No.8700/2021
68.	the regularisation order dated 29.12.2005
69.	The State of Karnataka Vs. K. Bhagyalakshmi , dated 29.10.2013 in WP No.15716/2013
70.	The state of Madhya Pradesh & Ors Vs. Shyam Kumar Yadav & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.25609/2018
71.	Jaggo Vs Union Of India Ca. No 14831/2024
72.	Shripal Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad Ca.No 8157/2024
73.	State Of Karnataka Vs Mayanna Gowda Wp.No 8700/2021
74.	Slp (Civil) No.42180/2024 (State Of Karnataka Vs Mayanna Gowda)
75.	The Implementation Order Dated 20.02.2025
76.	Nagendar S.G & K.C Veeranna C.A No 5586/2024
77.	The Implementation Order Dated 16.10.2024
78.	2023 Scc Online Sc 771 Om Prakash Banerjee Vs Sate Of Vest Bengal
79.	Sate Of Karnataka Vs Mahadevappa W.A No 100627
80.	SLP (Civil) 4469/2022 The Chife Secretary Vs Mahadevappa
81.	The Implementation Order Dated 01.03.2021
82.	Junjappa Vs State Of Karnataka Wp.No 6238/2020
83.	State Of Karnataka Vs M.A Biradar W.A No. 100387/2023
84.	Venkataraju V And State Of Karnataka Wp No.4268/2022

¶139

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

85.	Implementation Order Venkataraju V Dated 07.07.2025
86.	Sri Bhagawan Das Vs Deputy Commissioner Wp No 4478/2022
87.	the order dated 07.03.2025 in SLP (C) No. 5873/2025 in UT of J & K vs Abdul Rehman Khanday
88.	the regularisation order dated 20.02.2025 in Mayanna Gowda case along with translated copy.
89.	the regularisation order dated 16.10.2024 in Nagendra S. G. & Ors along with translated copy.
90.	the regularisation order dated 10.10.2022 issued to Mahadevappa Dalwai along with translated copy.
91.	the translated copy of the order dated 01.03.2021 in Kumar & Ors, case
92.	the regularisation order dated 25.09.2023 in Girish case
93.	the order dated 24.08.2023 in W.P. No. 8700/2021 (Mayanna Gowda & Ors.)
94.	the order dated 25.10.2024 in SLP (Diary) No. 42180/2024
95.	the order dated 30.04.2024 in C.A. No. 5586/2024 (Nagendra S.G. & Ors.)
96.	the order dated 02.09.2020 in W.A. No. 100627/2019 (Mahadevappa Dalwal)
97.	the order dated 21.03.2022 in SLP (C) No. 4469/2022 (Mahadevappa Dalwal case
98.	the order dated 09.12.2024 in C.A. No. 1943/2022
99.	the order 03.07.2023 in SLP No. 7898/2020 in Raman Kumar case
100.	Jaggo Vs Union Of India Ca. No 14831/2024
101	Shripal Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad Ca. No 8157/2024
102	Junjappa Vs State Of Karnataka Wp.No 6238/2020

¶142

21 -

¶143

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶144

HC-KAR

¶145

103	Srinivas Vs State Of Karnataka Wp.No 100387/2023
104	Sri Bhagwan Das Vs Sri Bhagwan Das Wp.No 4478/2022
105	CA.No.5586/2024 SHRI NAGENDRA G.S DR VEERANNA
106	SLP(C)5580/2024 JAGGO VS UOI
107	CA.No.8157/2024 SHIRIPAL VS NAGAR NIGAM
108	Malathi Das v. Suresh, (2014) 13 SCC 249
109	Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 17 SCC 393
110	CA.No.5292/2019 STATE OF KARNATAKA VS REVANAN S
111	WA.NO45/2013 STATE OF KARNARTAKA VS SRI JAGADEESH
112	W.P.No.54284/2013 C.G JAGADEESH VS STATE OF KARNARTAKA
113	ILR2003KAR2827 STATE OF KARNARTAKA Vs. MANJUNATH
114	GOVT OF KARNATAKA PROCEEDINGS
115	WP.No. 34996/2014 GOVT OF KARNATAKA PROCEEDINGS
116	ivanlal v. Pravin Krishna, (2016) 15 SCC 747
117	WA.No.629/2021 STATE OF KARNARTAKA VS MURUGA
118	CA.No.2795/2018 RAVI VARMA VS UOI
119	WP.No.13858/2000 KP. RAJU VS STATE OF KARNARTΑΚΑ
120	Urnendu Mukhopadhyay v. V.K. Kapoor, (2008) 14 SCC 403
121	M.P GANGARAGAIAH VS STATE OF KARNARTAKA ILR 2002 KAR 1871
122	Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 432

¶146

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

123	Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2019) 4 SCC 290
124	SLP(C) 7898/2020 RAMAN KUMAR VS UOI
125	CA.NO 5529/2023 BC NAGARAJ VS STATE OF KARNARTAKA
126	LT.COL.SUPRITH CHANDEL VS UOI
127	WP.NO 8700/2021 STATE OF KARNARTAKA VS MAYANNA GOWDA
128	SLP(C) 42180/2024 STATE OF KARNARTAKA STATE OF KARNARTAKA VS MAYANNAGOWDA
129	WP.NO 40204/2012 SHANTALAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNARTAKA
130	SLPNO 13724/2006 STATE OF KARNARTAKA VS M.M HOOLI
131	SLP(C) 5268/2004 STATE OF KARNARTAKA VS KUNDAIAH
132	SMT. SUJATHA DEVI AND H.S NAGARAJ REGUALARIZATION OF THEIR SERVICE
133	State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247
134	Rajnish Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., (2019) 17 SCC 648
135	SLP (Civil) Dairy No 42180/2024 State Of Karnataka Vs Mayanna Gowda
136	Mayanna Gowda Implementation Order
137	Nagendra Vs Dr K.C Veeranna & Ors CA.No 5586/2024
138	Review Petition (Dairy) No 24936/2024 Karnataka Veterinary Animal And Fisheries Science University Vs Someshwara & Ors
139	Nagendra Implementation Order
140	Chief Secretary & Ors Vs Mahadevappa SLP No 4469/2022

¶149

23 -

¶150

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

141	Mahadevappa Vs Chief Secretary & Ors CCC No 100149/2021
142	Mahadevappa Implementation Order
143	WP No 45030/2002 CCC.No 58/2006 A.K Vasantha Vs State Of Karnataka
144	A.K Vasantha Implementation Order
145	W.P No 4268/2022 Venkataraju V Vs State Of Karnataka
146	Venkataraju V Implementation Order
147	Ayanna implementation order
148	B.S Kruthika Implementation Order
149	Nagaraju Implementation Order
150	Suresh & Ors Implementation Order
151	Sri. Nayeem Akthter Ali Implementation Order
152	WA.No 1180/2024 The State Of Karnataka Vs Shri Ningappa Audagi
153	Shri Ningappa Audagi Implementation order
154	Shri R Jagadish implementation order

¶153

He also submits that the respondents are passing an order for regularisation only in selected cases, and hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition and issue a direction to the respondents to

¶154

24 -

¶155

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶156

HC-KAR

¶157

regularise the services of the petitioners and to fix their pay scale.

¶158

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the action of the respondents, in refusing to regularize the services of the petitioners, is legal. He submits that the petitioners work for daily wages and their appointment was not against any sanctioned post. They were not appointed by following the procedures. He submits that regularization of the daily wage workers appointed after 01.07.1984 came to be halted. He submits that as per the conditions at paragraph 53 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of karnataka V/s Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the persons who did not work for more than 10 years and did not fulfill the conditions as laid down in paragraph 53 of the said judgment are not entitled to regularisation of service. The State Government has brought an enactment called as the Karnataka Daily

¶159

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012 to protect the services of the daily wages employees and giving

¶162

certain benefits to them.

¶163

To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.120 & 128-329 of 1999, disposed of on 01.02.2001, wherein the Division Bench has set aside the positive direction issued by the learned Single Judge.

¶164

Further, to buttress his arguments, the learned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on

¶165

the following judgments:

¶166

Sl. No.	Case Laws
1.	The state of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shyam Kumar Yadav dated 22.07.2024 in SLP No.25609/2018
2.	Ushaben Joshi Vs.Union of India dated 02.08.2024 in SLP No.6427/2019
3.	Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India dated 30.01.2024 in CA No.5153-54 of 2024
4.	Ravi Verma Vs. Union of India dated 13.03.2018 in CA No.2795- 2796/2018

¶167

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶168

HC-KAR

¶169

Raman Kumar Vs. Union of India dated 03.07.2023 In SLP No.7898/2020

¶170

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs.Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union dated 12.03.2024 in CA No.4092-4093/2024

¶171

Basavanna Vs. The Chief Secretary dated 20.06.2024 in WP No.6149/2023

¶172

Sri. Thyagaraju Vs. The State Of Karnataka dated 14.07.2025 in WP No.3805/2023

¶173

The State of Karnataka Vs. The Karantaka Casual & Daily Rated Workers Union, Hubli dated 01/02/2001 in WA No.120 & 128- 329/1999

¶174

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶175

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶176

The petitioners approached this Court in W.P. Nos.33541-571 of 1998 seeking a prayer to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their service. This Court, vide Order dated 10.09.1999 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. The Order passed by the Learned Single Judge was challenged in a Writ

¶177

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶178

HC-KAR

¶179

Appeal Nos.2765-2905 of 2000. In the said writ appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench were challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.7855-7995 of 2001. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP vide Order dated 05.11.2001. Those petitioners were directed to submit a representation with the additional details in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶180

This Court, in several cases, along with the cases in W.P.Nos.37117-176 of 1999 disposed of on 15.12.1999 and in W.P. Nos.42096-113 of 2001 disposed of on 29.11.2001, dealt with the matter of regularisation of service of the employees who have put in service for more than 10 years and who were eligible for the regularisation of their services, and the order of regularisation was passed and the same

¶181

28 -

¶182

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶183

HC-KAR

¶184

was confirmed by the division bench of this Court and also was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶185

Admittedly, the petitioners are working with the respondents. They have produced a list marked as Annexure- A, showing the service particulars, in which the date of joining of each petitioners is shown at column No.6. As per this list, the petitioners have joined the services under the respondents during 1984 to 1995.

¶186

From the perusal of the chart at Annexure "A" produced by the petitioners, it discloses that the petitioners have worked for more than 10 years.

¶187

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo V. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 held as follows:

¶188

" 7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous service, the nature of their work, and the lack of any backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had functioned without any

¶189

29 -

¶190

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶191

HC-KAR

¶192

break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees, and had been assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent's offices. The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's decision and the submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant housekeeping and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants have approached this Court by way of these appeals.

¶193

On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have been advanced before us:

¶194

30 -

¶195

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶196

HC-KAR

¶197

(i) Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants emphasise their long, uninterrupted service spanning well over a decade-and in some instances, exceeding two decades. They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the respondent's offices.

¶198

(ii) Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities-such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance taskswere not casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional work environment, effectively aligning with roles typically associated with regular posts.

¶199

(iii) Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the appellants were never issued any warning or adverse remarks. They highlight that their work was consistently satisfactory, and there was no indication from the respondents that their performance was not satisfactory or required improvement.

¶200

(iv) Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Guidelines: The appellants assert that their appointments were not "illegal" but at most "irregular." Drawing on the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, they submit that longserving employees in irregular appointments-who fulfil essential,

¶201

31 -

¶202

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶203

HC-KAR

¶204

sanctioned functions-are entitled to consideration for regularization.

¶205

(v) Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar engagements have been regularized. They contend that denying them the same benefit, despite their longer service and crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.

¶206

(vi) Irrelevance of Educational

¶207

Qualifications: The appellants reject the respondents' reliance on formal educational requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced earlier and that the nature of their work does not inherently demand formal schooling. They argue that retrospectively imposing such qualifications is unjustified given their proven capability over many years.

¶208

(vii) Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their long, integral service. They maintain that fairness, equity, and established judicial principles call for their regularization rather than abrupt termination

¶209

On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents:

¶210

32 -

¶211

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶212

HC-KAR

¶213

(i) Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was never intended to be permanent or full-time.

¶214

(ii) Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts. According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent workforce.

¶215

(iii) Non-Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Criteria: Relying heavily on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the conditions necessary for regularization. They emphasize that merely serving a long period on a part-time or adhoc basis does not create a right to be regularized.

¶216

(iv) Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that even if the appellants were to be considered for regular appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into regular service.

¶217

(v) Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the relevant

¶218

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶219

HC-KAR

¶220

housekeeping and maintenance work to a private agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be interfered with by the courts.

¶221

(vi) No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue of long-standing temporary or parttime engagement, acquires a vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the appellants' claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that the High Court was correct in dismissing their petition.

¶222

Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.

¶223

The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene,

¶224

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶225

34 -

¶226

HC-KAR

¶227

cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas-a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.

¶228

Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶229

The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial

¶230

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶231

35 -

¶232

HC-KAR

¶233

engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

¶234

XXX

¶235

XXX

¶236

The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.

¶237

XXX

¶238

XXX

¶239

XXX

¶240

36 -

¶241

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶242

HC-KAR

¶243

It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors ., it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:

¶244

"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at

¶245

37 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶246

HC-KAR

¶247

hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

¶248

The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…"

¶249

The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light,

¶250

38 -

¶251

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶252

HC-KAR

¶253

refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.

¶254

The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

¶255

XXX

¶256

The landmark judgment of the United States in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft

¶257

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶258

39 -

¶259

HC-KAR

¶260

classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, commonlaw employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.

¶261

XXX

¶262

XXX

¶263

In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee

¶264

40 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶265

HC-KAR

¶266

morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."

¶267

The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in the

¶268

case of Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 , has

¶269

held at paragraphs 15 , which reads as follows :

¶270

"15. It is manifest that the appellant workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so, allows an adverse influence under the wellestablished labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavours perpetual Daily wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence

¶271

41 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶272

HC-KAR

¶273

of a genuine contract agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite temporary employment practice as done by the recent judgment of this Court in Jaggo vs union of India reported in 2024 INSC 1034 following paragraphs:

¶274

"22.The pervasive misuse of the temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader Systematic issue that adversely affects the worker's right and job security. In the private sector, rise of gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by the lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labor standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principle of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When a public sector entity engage in the misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

¶275

x x x

¶276

25. It is a disconcerting reality that the temporary employees, particularly in the government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation.

¶277

42 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶278

HC-KAR

¶279

While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long term obligations owned to employees. This practice manifests in several ways:

¶280

Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

¶281

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

¶282

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or

¶283

43 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶284

HC-KAR

¶285

incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

¶286

Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

¶287

Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

¶288

The above stated decisions would state that if the employees who are initially appointed on a

¶289

44 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶290

HC-KAR

¶291

temporary basis are continued for a very long period, their cases need to be considered for regularisation.

¶292

The petitioners have produced several orders of regularization passed by various Departments of the State Government, viz ., Commercial Department order dated 20.02.2025 in respect of Sri.Mayanna Gowda; Water Resources Department order dated 10.10.2022 of Mahadevappa Dalawai; Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, order dated 16.10.2024 in respect of Ms.Jyothi D.; and orders in respect of A.K Vasantha, Venkataraju, Ayanna, B.S.Kruthika, Nagaraju, Suresh, Nayeem Akther, Ningappa & R Jagadish. All these orders were passed based on the Orders by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the writ petitions, writ Appeals and the Special Leave Petitions.

¶293

The petitioners have been working for more than 10 years and the respondents have made them run from

¶294

45 - NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶295

HC-KAR

¶296

pillar to post, since 2001. The petitioners are not getting the fruits of the orders passed in their favour. The State had taken steps to implement the orders passed in the writ petitions, writ appeals and the SLPs. Despite repeated orders passed by this Court, the respondents are implementing the said orders, wherever the petitioners approach, but they are not regularising the services of the employees who have not approached this Court. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to regularisation of service from the date they have completed 10 years of their service.

¶297

For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶298

ORDER

¶299

The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶300

A mandamus is issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners herein from the dates on which the

¶301

NC: 2025:KHC:47759 WP No. 13176 of 2017

¶302

46 -

¶303

HC-KAR

¶304

petitioners have completed 10 years of their service.

¶305

The petitioners shall become entitled to fixation of their salaries on such regularization, as obtained by the permanent employees, from the dates they have completed 10 years of service, however, they would not be entitled to arrears of salary. But, the period shall be treated as continuous for all consequential benefits that would flow from such regularisation.

¶306