Daily Wage Employee Continuously Serving For Over 10 Years In Sanctioned Post Is Entitled To Regularization, Procedural Irregularities Can't Be Grounds For Denial: Karnataka HC

Background Facts

The petitioner was engaged as a daily wage employee in Forest Department over a period of thirty years and was discharging his duties as a Forest Watcher/Driver performing tasks equivalent to those assigned to regular employees. Despite rendering continuous uninterrupted service for an extended period, the petitioner's request for regularization was denied through endorsements dated 29.8.2016, prompting him to seek redressal before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). However, the KSAT, vide order dated 31.07.2019, dismissed his claim for regularization on the grounds of lack of documentary evidence establishing continuous service, Non-fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the Umadevi judgment. Further KSAT held that there was delay in seeking regularization.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the KSAT. Further petitioner prayed for quashing of the order of KSAT and sought a direction to the respondents to grant regularization of his services along with all consequential monetary benefits.

It was contended by the petitioner that he had satisfied the criteria for regularization as per the various Government Orders/Circulars issued both prior to and subsequent to the Umadevi decision of the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the KSAT had erroneously applied the ratio in the judgment of Umadevi without appreciating the subsequent decision of State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L.Kesari and other; Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others; State of Karnataka and others vs. M.A.Biradar and another which permit the regularization of employees who have completed 10 years of service in sanctioned post. It was further submitted that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from the general category of daily wage worker and his duties and responsibilities were similar to those of permanent employees.

On the other hand it was contended by the respondents that the petitioner's engagement was not against a sanctioned post. It was submitted that as per Umadevi decision, daily wage employees do not have an inherent right to claim regularization. It was further submitted that the petitioner had not produced formal appointment order or other conclusive proof demonstrating continuous service in a sanctioned post. It was further submitted that the continuation of petitioner's employment was a result of interim relief granted by Courts and not due to any official recognition of his service tenure. It was also emphasized that the recruitment rules for the Forest Department require appointments to be made through the prescribed selection process, which was not done in the petitioner's case.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the Tribunal's reliance on the Umadevi judgment was incorrect, as it was applied in a rigid manner without considering the subsequent clarification in State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L.Kesari and other, which held that employees who have completed ten years of service in sanctioned post prior to the pronouncement of Umadevi judgment are entitled to regularization.

It was observed by the court that the petitioner was in continuous service of Forest Department as a Watcher/Driver and his service was on par with the regular employees and he had been engaged in the said services right from the date of his appointment as a daily wager. Further the Tribunal had failed to evaluate the substantial evidence furnished by the petitioner including his salary records, service certificates which established his continuous and uninterrupted employment. It was held that the absence of a formal appointment order should not in itself, negate the legitimate rights of an employee who had been continuously engaged in service.

It was observed by the court that the KSAT had erred in dismissing the claim solely on the ground of delay. It was held that delay cannot be the sole criterion to deny service benefits, particularly when an employee had been continuously engaged by the Government. The delay, if any was attributable to the respondents' failure to regularize his services rather than any inaction on the part of the petitioner.

The case of Jaggo vs. Union of India was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that the decision in Uma Devi does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State. But the Umadevi judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments. It was further held that where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously, performed tasks required on a regular basis for a considerable period, then temporary employment requires fair regularization.

Further the judgment of Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, was relied upon wherein it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee.

Therefore it was held by the court that the respondents cannot deny the relief to the petitioner. It was further held that the order passed by the KSAT was unsustainable in law as KSAT had failed to appreciate the legal principles governing regularization, as laid down in M.L.Kesari and other precedents.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Name : P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests & Ors

Case No. : WP 6238/2020

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ranganatha S. Jois, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Vikas Rojipura, AGA

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 146