BHAIRU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the impugned endorsement/ order passed by the respondents authorities, whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization of service has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioners were appointed on daily basis for the posts under respondents as a City Municipal Council several decades ago and have been continuously discharging duties against the sanction and perennial post. It is the case of the petitioners that they have rendered uninterrupted service for more than two decades and, in fact has put in more than 25-30 years of service. The nature of work performed by the petitioners is permanent in nature and essential to the functioning of the local body. The petitioners were extended the benefit of equal pay for equal work, thereby acknowledging the long standing and continuous nature of employment. It is submitted that despite earlier directions issued by this Court to consider the petitioners' claim for regularization, the respondents' authorities have rejected the claim by the impugned endorsement, solely on the ground that the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service as on 10/4/2006. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others,(2006) 4 SCC 1.(Umadevi). Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioners have approached this Court in this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned endorsement is vitiated by a total non- application of mind and suffers from arbitrariness. It is contended that the respondents authorities are mechanically relied upon Umadevi, ignoring subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court and this Court, which have clarified that 10/4/2006 is not a rigid or inflexible cut-off date. The petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nagesh S/o. Hanamant Pujeri and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others[W.P. No.105364/2025 & connected Matters D.D. 15/10/2025] (Nagesh) and in the case of Ramu S/o. Hanumanth Kurbar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others[W.P. No.107918/2023 D.D. 26/11/2025] (Ramu). As well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam[2025 SSC OnLine SC 221] (Shirpal), wherein it has been categorically held that the long serving daily wage employees appointed against sanctioned post and discharging perennial duties are entitled to consideration for regularization, notwithstanding the date of completion of ten years of service. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners' case stands on a very strong footing, as the length of service exceeds 25 years, the employment was not protected by any interim order and the respondents-local body itself has admitted the continuous service. It is contended that denial of regularization in such circumstances amounts to exploitation and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.