Karnataka HC Directs Regularisation Of Daily Wage Employees Working At Horticulture And Sericulture Department For Over 10 Yrs

A single judge bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad allowed the petition filed by Shanthalakshmi and others and said “The petitions are allowed quashing the impugned Endorsements dated 14.06.2010 and 15.06.2012, and declared that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation in terms of 2002/2005 Schemes. Respondents in these petitions are directed to issue appropriate Orders in view of this Court's declaration within a period of three [3] months.”

Background

The state government had issued the endorsement rejecting the petitioner's representation referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the Secretary, the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, and the subsequent Circular dated 05.01.2006 issued by the State government for the purposes of implementing the directions issued by the Apex Court in this decision.

In the Umadevi case, the court had as a one-time measure allowed regularisation of those who were temporarily employed but were continued in service for more than 10 years, subject to four conditions. Regularisation was to be done against a sanctioned post and petitioners should have continued in service for more than 10 years independent of any interim order by Courts.

The petitioners had sought regularisation on the grounds of parity. It was stated that earlier, the High Court had directed the respondents to consider their case in view of the judgement of the coordinate bench in 'H S Raghupathi Gowda's case, W.P.Nos.33541- 15 571/1998 and connected matters and also the directions of the Apex Court.

The State Government in light of these decisions issued an order dated 19.07.2002 ('2002 Scheme') to implement the directions and apply to not only those who are in service with Zilla Panchayats as Daily Wage Workers but also those with the other departments. 

It was submitted that the Scheme applies to not only those who are in service with Zilla Panchayats as Daily Wage Workers but also those with the other departments.

The Court was also told about another scheme launched by the state pursuant to S.Nagaraju's case, leading to the framing of a Scheme ('2005 Scheme') for the regularization of daily wage workers.

Thus it was argued that if similarly circumstanced persons within the same Departments have been regularised under the aforesaid Schemes/Government Orders without reference to whether they are appointed as against sanctioned posts, the petitioners' requests cannot be rejected on the ground that they are not appointed against sanctioned posts, or that they are not duly qualified.

The government opposed the plea submitting that the petitioners' services were taken on Nominal Monthly Rolls [NMR] to meet certain exigencies and not against any sanctioned strength and that the petitioners' services would not have been continued except for the interim orders granted by the court.

Further,  it was argued that the petitioners cannot make a claim of parity with those who are parties to such proceedings in the cases referred, nor claim the benefit of the 2002 Scheme or 2005 Scheme. The benefit of the orders in these two proceedings must be confined only to the persons who were parties to the proceedings and not otherwise, it was submitted.

It was argued that since the petitioners initiated proceedings only after the decision in Umadevi's case (2006 & 2011), the request for regularisation must necessarily be considered in the light of the directions therein along with the circular issued by the State government to implement the directions.

Findings:

The court noted that petitioners in the case on hand and those whose services are already regularised pursuant to the 2002/2005 Schemes [and subsequent orders in 2006/2021] were placed on an even footing if the date and the nature of the appointment and the continuity in service are considered.

It was held that the only distinction between these two sets of persons was the fact that the petitioners had approached the Court after the decision in Umadevi's case.

To this, the court said, “The petitioners must be treated equally with the aforesaid group of persons lest there be arbitrariness and unreasonableness in such decision.”

It added, “The clarification between two similarly circumstantial persons must be founded on substantial differences and such substantial difference, the intelligible differentia viz., the reason for differentiating between any similarly circumstanced persons should be to achieve a legal objective; otherwise, the distinction will not be real or substantial leading to an arbitrary and unreasonable decision.”

Then it opined that the reason for the regularisation of services of those who have been appointed temporarily but continued for 10 years or more without a break is to ensure that there is no exploitation, which would occur if a person continues to work on a temporary basis for a long period without being paid due/financial benefits/salary.

Observing that a balance must be struck to really implement the ideology in the exposition in Umadevi's case recognizing a right against exploitation, the court held, “The petitioners are similarly circumstanced as their juniors inasmuch as they are also appointed after 01.07.1984 and continued in service for more than ten years, and if their juniors' services are regularised under 2002/2005 Schemes and under the subsequent orders after the Umadevi's case without considering whether they are appointed against sanctioned post or other circumstances underscored in this decision, the reason that the petitioners have approached the Court after decision in Umadevi's case does not subserve the objective and will only lead to artificial classification to deny them the benefit of regularisation taking advantage of a particular circumstance.”

It also rejected the government's contention that petitioners were ineligible because their service was continued due to interim orders passed by the court.

Accordingly, it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Senior Advocate V Lakshminarayana for Advocate Vikram Balaji B L for Petitioners.

AAG Reuben Jacob for Respondents

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 370

Case Title: Shanthalakshmi AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.40204/2012 [S-REG] C/W WRIT PETITION NO.54553/2014