Karnataka High Court orders regularisation of service of 68-year-old man, who had retired in 2015 after serving as daily wage employee for 21 years

The High Court of Karnataka has ordered regularisation of service of a 68-year-old man, who retired 10 years ago pending his plea for regularisation of service at a gram panchayat in Sirsi taluk of Uttara Kannada district, after serving as an attender-cum-bill collector on contract basis for 21 years since 1994.

“The right to consideration for service does not evaporate on attainment of age of superannuation as the petitioner retired as daily wage contract employee while his claim for regularisation subsisted,” the court said.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Venkatarama Hegde, resident of Kuluve village in Sirsi taluk.

The service of the petitioner should stand regularised with effect from the date on which he had completed 10 years in service from the date of initial appointment on contract basis that is on January 9, 2004, the court said.

The petitioner was not regularised in service despite the recommendation made by the gram panchayat and a direction issued by the court in 2014.

Apex Court’s rulings

Citing the Supreme Court’s major judgments, right from the 2006 case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and Dharam Singh vs. State of UP, 2015, on regularisation of service, the High Court said that the “employees regardless of the nomenclature attached to their engagement, whether temporary, contractual or daily wage or even on consolidated pay, once they have completed 10 years of service and were otherwise qualified to hold the post, are entitled to consideration for regularization.”

The court also said that except salary arrears, the petitioner would be entitled to all benefits taking the entire service, between 1994 and 2015, when he retired, as service for the purpose of such determination, including for all retirement benefits.

Cautioned

Meanwhile, the court cautioned the State authorities that they should not drive the petitioner into yet another cycle of litigation by resurrecting the SC’s judgment in Umadevi’s case to deny regularisation, as the government had claimed that the petitioner does not fit into the conditions stipulated in Umadevi’s case.

The SC, in judgments subsequent to Umadevi’s case, on regularisation of services had made it clear that certain restriction for regularisation mentioned in Umadevi’s case “cannot be deployed as a shield to perpetuate injustice or to deny legitimate regularisation to employees who have served State for decades”, the High Court made it clear.