If Not Regularised It Would Put A Premium On State's Act Of Exploiting Human Labour: Karnataka HC Directs Regularisation Of 2 Daily Wagers

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowing the petition filed by Anandu and Ishwar said “Petitioners have in their prime youth worked for the services of the State, as daily wagers. They are continued to be in that position even today, with certain benefits conferred from time to time. They are in the last leg of their services. If their services are not directed to be regularised today, it would be putting a premium on the act of the State, exploiting human labour, as these petitioners, if left in the lurch, will have to wander for their livelihood after having served the State for 39 years and 32 years respectively.”

It added “Such exploitation which has to be stopped and stopped forthwith, the subject case becomes a classic illustration where mandamus is required to be issued, not for considering the cases of the petitioners, but to regularise their services, as any direction, if issued only to consider the cases of the petitioners, it will generate another round of litigation, as the State would get a hand, to handle against the petitioners.”

The court thereafter said that the petitioners shall become entitled to fixation of their salaries on such regularisation as obtaining to a permanent employee from the dates they complete 10 years of services; they would not be entitled for arrears of salary, but the period shall be treated for all consequential benefits that would flow from such regularisation. 

The petitioner had approached the court after several representations given to the government for regularising their services did not elicit an order. They contended that as they have completed more than 30 years of service in the respective cadres in which they are serving for these long years, they would seek a direction for regularizing their services. They had both joined the department of Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj as daily wagers. 

The government advocate contended that merely because the petitioners are working from a long time as daily wagers, it cannot be said that they are entitled for regularization of their services. They have been brought under the ambit of Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012, which is equally beneficial. Thus the petitioners cannot claim regularization as a matter of right.

Findings:

On going through the records the bench noted that the first petitioner has put in 39 years of service in a sanctioned vacant post. It noted that he was now 58-years-old. The second petitioner has put in 32 years of service in a sanctioned vacant post. It noted that he was now 54-years-old. In their prime youth, they have toiled without knowing their future, as they were daily wage employees then, and daily wage employees even today. The only difference is that they are brought under the Act.

The court referred to Supreme Court judgment in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI (2006) and said “The petitioners fulfill every condition. It is ununderstandable as to how the State would bring these petitioners under the Act, rendering a temporary solace, when they had a right to be regularized, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of UMADEVI.”

Referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court the bench said “Regularization of the services of the employees engaged to work for the State for long years should be considered, failing which, it would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Noting that there is no explanation from the hands of the State as to why the cases of these petitioners are deliberately left out while scores and scores of the services of the daily wagers have been regularised pursuant to circulars issued, in the aftermath of judgement in the case of UMADEVI. It said “Therefore, the State has practised, pick and choose procedure in considering the cases for regularization.”

Allowing the petitions the court said “Employees who have served for long years with minimum threshold of 10 years and beyond, and if they come within the parameters of what the Apex Court noted as quoted hereinabove, the State itself should consider regularisation of those cases, albeit, on case to case basis, as a person who is working on daily wage, would not be in a position to bear the brunt of litigation and it is not the law that every person should be driven to the Court seeking the very same relief that is granted to similarly situated persons, if they are in fact, similar.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Vinaykumar Bhat for Advocate Ravi Hegde for Petitioners.

HCGP Kirtilata R Patil FOR R1, R2 AND R4.

Advocate Vishwanath Hegde for R3.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 68

Case Title: Anandu & ANR AND The Principal Secretary & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.100556 OF 2024