Mr. D Manjunath Vs the Managing Director

Petitioners in this petition are challenging the endorsement dated 02.08.2018 vide Annexure-A issued by the second respondent and consequently issue direction to the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶27

The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:

¶28

The petitioners were appointed as a 'Meter Reader' in the respondent-Corporation on 01.01.2001 and the respondents have dismissed the petitioners from service without prior notice or enquiry, vide termination order dated 18.10.2007. The petitioners aggrieved by the order of termination, approached the Labour Court in Reference

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46281 WP No. 35516 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

No.18/2009. The Labour Court, vide order dated 30.11.2010 set aside the order of termination and directed to reinstate the petitioners with 50% back wages. The respondents aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.18/2009, preferred writ petition in WP Nos.21035 & 27603-606/2011. This Court vide order dated 27.07.2011, dismissed the writ petitions. The respondent, aggrieved by the order passed in the said writ petitions, preferred the writ appeals in WA Nos. 15853/2011 and WA Nos. 596-599/2012. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.11.2012, dismissed the writ appeals. After the dismissal of the writ appeals, the petitioners submitted a representation vide Annexure -F dated 09.06.2014 for regularisation of their service to the post of a Meter Reader. Respondent No.2 issued an Endorsement dated 02.08.2018 vide Annexure-A stating that the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service as of the date of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:46281 WP No. 35516 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI AND

¶36

OTHERS , reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 i.e. 10.01.2006. Petitioners aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 02.08.2018 vide Annexure-A issued by the second respondent, filed this writ petition.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶38

and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed in the respondentCorporation as a Meter Reader on 01.01.2001 and they have continuously worked for more than 10 years. He submits that the petitioners' services are entitled for regularization. He submits that the petitioners submitted a representation for regularisation of their services. The respondents rejected the representation by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS, AIR 2006 SC 1806 and contended that the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46281 WP No. 35516 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

petitioners have not completed 10 years as of the date of said judgment. The said Endorsement is contrary to the records. The petitioners have completed more than 10 years.

¶43

To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel

¶44

for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAGGO vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2024 INSC 1034, DHARAM SINGH vs. STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC

¶45

OnLine SC 1735, SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER vs. NAGAR

¶46

NIGAM, GHAZIABAD reported in (2025) 1 SCR 1427 . He submits that the impugned Endorsement passed by the respondents is contrary to the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred supra . Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

¶48

submits that the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service and thus the impugned endorsement was

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46281 WP No. 35516 of 2018

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

passed and to buttress her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UMA DEVI AND

¶52

OTHERS, referred supra and also places reliance on the on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UNION OF

¶53

INDIA AND OTHERS vs. ILMO DEVI AND ANOTHER -

¶54

Civil Appeal Nos. 5689-5690/2021 . She submitted that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue a direction to the respondents for regularisation of service. Hence, on this ground, she prays to dismiss the Petition.

¶55

Perused the records and considered the

¶56

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶57

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were appointed as Meter Reader on 01.01.2001. In 2007, the respondents terminated the service of the petitioners. The petitioners raised a dispute before the Labour Court in Reference No. 18/2009. The Labour Court allowed the

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46281 WP No. 35516 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Reference vide award dated 30.11.2010, wherein it directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with 50% of back wages without any continuity of service and consequential benefits. The respondents aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference No. 18/2009, preferred writ petition in WP No. 21035 and 27603-606/2011. This Court vide order dated 27.07.2011, dismissed the writ petitions. The respondents aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petitions, preferred the writ appeals in W.A.Nos.15853/2011 and WA Nos. 596-599/2012. The Division Bench vide order dated 23.11.2012, dismissed the writ appeals. After the disposal of the said writ appals, the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondents on 09.06.2014 for regularization of service to the post of Meter Reader. The second respondent issued an Endorsement relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI referred supra and

¶61

8 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:46281 WP No. 35516 of 2018

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

contended that the petitioners have not completed 10

¶65

years of service as of the date of the judgment.

¶66

From the perusal of the records, it clearly discloses that the petitioners have completed 10 years of service. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHRIPAL

¶67

AND ANOTHER vs. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD reported in (2025) 1 SCR 1427 has held in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 which read as follows:

¶68

" 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.

¶69

15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade.

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46281 WP No. 35516 of 2018

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

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 inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors 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 of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India …."

¶73

Considering the proposition laid down by the

¶74

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DHARAM SINGH vs. STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER, SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER vs. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD and JAGGO vs. UNION OF INDIA (referred supra), the petitioners worked as Group 'C' employees in the respondent-company for more than 10 years would mean that there is a need for regularization of the petitioners' services.

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46281 WP No. 35516 of 2018

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court while passing the judgments in the cases of JAGGO vs. UNION OF INDIA - 2024 INSC 1034, DHARAM SINGH vs. STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER-2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER vs. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD -(2025) 1 SCR 1427 , has referred to its judgment in STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS ( supra) and thus, the respondents are required to reconsider the representation of the petitioners in terms of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred supra .

¶78

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶79

ORDER

¶80

i. Writ Petition is allowed.

¶81

ii. The endorsement vide Annexure-A dated 02.08.2018 issued by the second respondent is hereby set aside.

¶82

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:46281 WP No. 35516 of 2018

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

iii. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the representations of the petitioners in terms of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAGGO vs. UNION OF INDIA - 2024 INSC 1034, DHARAM SINGH vs. STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER-2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER vs. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD -(2025) 1 SCR 1427 , and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.

¶85

In view of the disposal of the main matter, IA No.1/2019 and IA No.2/2025 does not survive for consideration. Hence, accordingly disposed of.

¶86

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶87

BSV CT: BHK

Mr. D Manjunath v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. D Manjunath v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bhagirathi B S Vs the Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka

K Gopala Vs the Managing Director

Sri Giriraja C K Vs Karnataka Power Trasnmission Corporation Ltd.

Shankara J Vs Union of India

Kum Shree Lakshmi P Belagere Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri S v Hari Vs Dena Bank