RACHOTAPPA Vs. KUMAR NAIK G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in Writ Petition No.107196/2015 had obtained an order at the hands of a learned Single Judge on 26/4/2018. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:

(2.) The matter was taken in appeal in W.A.No.100488/2019 disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 12/11/2019 in favour of the petitioner. Again the matter was taken to the Apex Court as well in SLP No.14413/2020 and it met the same fate vide order dtd. 18/11/2020. This case of the complainant is now on a "settled fact".

(3.) It is the case of complainant that despite several rounds of litigation successfully fought by him. The fruits of these orders are not reaching his hands in the true sense inasmuch as all though his services have been regularized in terms of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS (2006) 4 SCC 1, the effective date of regularization i.e., 12/11/2019 is wrongly fixed. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the very idea of regularization is to regularize the irregular services rendered ab inceptio and therefore, it necessarily has to be with effect from the date the employee gained entry to such irregular services.