'Heart Of Cardio Institute Itself Not In Right Place': Karnataka HC While Regularising Service Of Nurses Engaged On Contract Since 20 Yrs

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of Ten Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) working on contractual basis for over 20 years in Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, by directing that their services be regularised from the date they completed 10 years of service.

A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda allowed the petitions filed by B J Rani and others and said “Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have worked for more than 20 years, it would be just and necessary to direct the respondents to regularise the services of petitioners from the date they completed 10 years of service. The respondents shall not take into consideration the renewal break of a day or two while computing this period of 10 years.”

Setting aside endorsement issued by the hospital refusing to regularise the nurses. The court said, “A premium institute which has been established to take care of the problems related to the heart and nurse diseased hearts to good health is, however, acting in a very unhealthy manner and is indicating its heart is not in the right place when it comes to treating its employees.”

It added “The institute, which is undoubtedly an instrumentality of the State, is required to be a model employer. The Institute which is governed by the Governing Council headed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister and co-chaired by the Minister of Health, is required to ensure that Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) are treated fairly and are not exploited.”

The petitioners were initially appointed to the posts of Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) for a period of two years in 2004. Since then they have been working for the last two decades and discharging the same work that the 'Regular Staff Nurses' were discharging. Therefore, they contended that payment of a lesser salary and denial of benefits that are given to such 'Regular Staff Nurses' amounts to a breach of the accepted constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work”.

The Institute opposed the plea saying that since the petitioners have not been appointed against any sanctioned post, they cannot seek regularisation of their appointments. It also cited Cadre and Recruitment Rules to contend it does not provide for regularisation as there is no permanent post called “Staff Nurse (Stipendiary)".

Findings:

The bench noted that the Institute was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It was empowered to appoint and hire the services of personnel and pay them the salaries and other allowances in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Institute and the Bye-laws framed by the Governing Council. In the year 1983, “Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology Rules and Regulations, 1983” were framed.

Referring to the rules and regulations, the court said “A cumulative reading of the MOA, the Rules and Regulations, and the Bye-laws, leaves no room for doubt that the Institute has been empowered to appoint personnel both on permanent and temporary basis. The Governing Council is specifically given the power to also renew the temporary posts from time to time. It is, therefore, clear that the power to appoint the personnel to the Institute either on permanent or temporary basis vests with the Governing Council.”

It said if a post is filled up by calling for applications by way of an open advertisement published in a newspaper and the candidates are appointed by the Director, it cannot be said that the appointments are irregular. This was also supported by the fact mentioned in the advertisement that there were 80 posts of Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) which were vacant. It therefore held that all the posts to which the petitioners were appointed were sanctioned posts.

Rejecting the contention of the Institute that it had resolved to increase pay of the petitioners and the other Staff Nurses (Stipendiary), Court said, “This attempt, though intended to improve the lot of the petitioners and other similarly placed nurses, would nevertheless, if accepted, only permit the perpetuation of an illegality and the continued exploitation of the petitioners and other Staff Nurses (Stipendiary).”

It added “If the petitioners have been made to discharge the very same work that the regular and permanent staff nurses have been discharging from the past 20 years and more, they would have to necessarily be paid the same wages. This offer of increasing their pay would, therefore, be only a ruse to continue their exploitation and cannot be accepted.”

Court said if a person is initially appointed for a contractually defined term and is thereafter continued for more than two decades, by renewing the contracts regularly, it would be impossible to treat these posts as temporary posts. It also took into account that the Institute has a cadre of Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) which contains 898 posts, as against the regular posts of 225 Staff Nurses.

"In other words, the contractual Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) outnumber the Regular Staff Nurses by a ratio of 1:3. This would clearly lead to an inference that the Institute is completely dependent — not on the strength of the Regular Staff Nurses but only on the Staff Nurses who are working on the Stipendiary basis,” Court said.

It held that Staff Nurses (Stipendiary), though discharge the same work as Regular Staff Nurses, are in fact being paid far lesser than the Regular Permanent Staff Nurses, thus violating the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work” embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, it directed regularisation of the petitioners service. It said, “Having regard to the financial implications that would entail on the State Government, it would be appropriate to hold that the petitioners would be entitled for arrears of wages only from the date of filing of these petitions i.e., from 15/16.06.2023.”

Appearance: Advocate Ranganatha S Jois for Petitioners.

Additional Advocate General V G Bhanu Prakash a/w AGA V Hemalatha for R-1.

Senior Advocate D L Jagadeesh for Advocate Rakshitha D J for R-2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

Case Title: B J Rajni & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12683 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12691 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order