Somasheskara H N Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Somasheskara H N Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: respondents directed to regularize the services of the petitioners forthwith; past services to be counted for fixation of pay and pension; compliance within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, employed with respondent No.2 (Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation Ltd.) on honorarium basis continuously for more than ten years, are entitled to regularization of their services. +1 more

Court's answer

Continuous utilization of the petitioners' services by respondent No.2 for over ten years without break establishes that their services were necessary to respondent No.2; they were employed on a temporary basis for an enormously long period.

Ratio / Principle

The board resolution of 28.09.2015 to regularize all employees made evident respondent No.2's need for the petitioners' services; accordingly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 should have taken immediate steps for regularization once the 2014-2015 profitability was communicated.

Key takeaways

Applying the line of authority beginning with M.L. Kesari's explanation of Uma Devi and continuing through Vinod Kumar, Jaggo and Shripal, long-continuing temporary/daily-wage service warrants regularization.ratio¶67
Obiter: continued engagement of persons on daily-wage or contract basis by the State defeats Article 16; courts should take proactive measures, including regularizing employees with 10 to 20 years of service and permitting the State to recover the financial impact from officers who failed to discontinue daily wagers or undertake regular recruitment.obiter¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 988 of 2019 (S-REG) (R. Nataraj J., 25.03.2025): Six supervisors/showroom assistants of the Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation Ltd., serving continuously for more than ten years on honorarium, sought mandamus directing consideration of their regularization. Their earlier round (W.P.No.10745-10756/2012) had yielded a direction to consider; the Corporation's board resolved on 29.06.2015, 28.09.2015 (subject No.129.11) and 11.07.2016 to regularize 33 long-serving employees, but the proposals stalled at the State level, the Finance Department objecting on grounds of recurring losses and the draft C and R Rules being rejected on 07.11.2019. Following State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as explained in M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, and the later decisions in Vinod Kumar, (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1230, Jaggo, SLP(C) No.5580/2024 (20.12.2024) and Shripal, C.A. No.8157/2024 (31.01.2025), and endorsing the Division Bench's APMC Hubballi line (W.P.No.100387/2023, resting on Smt. Shankremma, W.P.No.83563564/2012), the Court held that uninterrupted use of the petitioners' services for over ten years proved their necessity and that regularization was overdue. Held: writ allowed; services to be regularized forthwith and past service counted for fixation of pay and pension, compliance within three months. Observed (obiter) that continued daily-wage/contractual engagements defeat Article 16 and suggested recovery of the financial impact from the officers responsible.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioners earlier sought regularization in W.P.No.10745-10756/2012, which was disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider their case and to give preference and priority when recruitment became necessary.¶32
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 contended that petitioner S. Raghu was not a party to W.P.No.10745-756/2012 and therefore not entitled to the reliefs granted therein.¶52
Prior proceeding
Seventeen similarly placed employees were regularized in February 2011 pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1486/2010 and connected matters.¶36
Prior proceeding
The petitioners' names figured at serial Nos.33, 34, 17, 43, 18 and 46 respectively in the list of temporary employees prepared by respondent No.2.¶33-36
Prior proceeding
Board of respondent No.2 met on 29.06.2015 and resolved to send proposals to regularize the services of 33 employees by authorizing the Managing Director; communicated vide letter dated 10.07.2015.¶36
Prior proceeding
On 13.11.2015 respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 that it had generated profit during 2014-2015 and could regularize the services of 33 employees.¶37-38
Prior proceeding
By letter dated 02.12.2015 the Commissioner for Industrial Development and the Director of the Department of Industries and Commerce opined that regularization of 33 employees could be granted subject to respondent No.2 bearing their salaries.¶38-42
Prior proceeding
By letter dated 28.04.2016 respondent No.2 enclosed an extract of the resolution of the board meeting held on 28.09.2015 (subject No.129.11) requesting permission to regularize persons with more than seven years' service.¶41-43
Prior proceeding
By communication dated 07.05.2016 respondent No.2 enclosed the Cadre and Recruitment Rules ('C and R Rules') as approved by it and sought sanction for further action.¶43
Prior proceeding
At a board meeting on 11.07.2016 respondent No.2 resolved to regularize employees who had served for more than seven years on honorarium and reiterated its request to respondent No.1 to sanction regularization of all employees.¶43
Prior proceeding
Despite the board resolutions, the proposals sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 did not progress beyond that stage, prompting the present petition.¶44-47
Prior proceeding
The Finance Department opined that due to recurring losses regularization would be an additional burden on respondent No.2, and did not accept the proposal to regularize the petitioners.¶53
Prior proceeding
The draft Cadre and Recruitment Rules submitted by respondent No.2 were rejected by the government at a meeting held on 07.11.2019.¶56
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 maintained that the petitioners, employed on honorarium basis, could be regularized only upon complying with the conditions in Government Order No. CI 137 CSC 2021 dated 22.03.2022, and contended their case fell outside the Umadevi guidelines.¶56