-1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 27424 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GEETHA R W/O. RAMESH R, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT "PUTTAJAYA", 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS, BEHIND PREETHI CAKE PALACE, BAPUJI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 026. 2. SMT. PREMA T W/O. UMESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT 92/4, 9TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, GOVINDARAJNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 079. 3. SRI. NATARAJ T S/O. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT 56, VAJRAHALLI (V), MANNIGANAHALLI (P), KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TQ, RAMANAGAR DIST. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA -2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 4. SRI. GANDUGALI K S S/O. SIDDARAMAPPA K S, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT KHANDENAHALLI POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 549. 5. SRI. SANJAY D S/O. A DORESWAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, OPPMATHA LODGE, RAMANAGARA MAIN ROAD, KANAKAPURA - 562 117. 6. SMT. NANDINI B W/O. LATE. M N LEDHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT NO. 147/9, MARUTHINAGAR, 3RD STAGE, SONNENAHALLI, ULLALA UPA NAGARA POST, BANGALORE - 560 056. 7. SMT. FARZNABANU W/O. G H ASIFULLA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT 2691, 17TH B-MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 041. -3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 8. SMT. GEETHA M W/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT 24, 16TH CROSS, 3RD E-MAIN ROAD, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 026. 9. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI D.S, W/O. C JAYAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT 481/A, NEW NO. 26, 8TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 019. 10. SMT. JYOTHI S W/O. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 558, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 113, KHB COLONY, SHIRKE APARTMENT, KENGERI, UPANAGARA - 560 060. 11. SMT. LAKSHMIKANTHAMMA W/O. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 4, 1ST MAIN-A-CROSS, NEW GUDDADAHALLI, GOVT. ELECTRIC FACTORY, BANGALORE - 560 026. -4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 12. SHASHIKALA B S D/O. BHADRANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 2206, 5TH CROSS, SHIVANADANAGARA, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE - 560 072. 13. SMT. DIVYA T D/O. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 6TH A-CROSS, 2ND MAIN, BAPUJINAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 026. 14. SMT. DEEPA T W/O. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: COMPUTER OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 6TH A CROSS, 2ND MAIN, BAPUJINAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 026. 15. SMT. ANURADHA N W/O. L. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: COMPUTER OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE 560 002, R/AT: 3/30, GEETHA COLONY, YELECHENAHALLI, CHUNCHAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 041. 16. SRI. RAMANJANEYA G S/O. LATE. GANGAIAH, -5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 169, JAYANAGARA, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 562 123. 17. SRI. UMASHANKAR MURTHY B M S/O. MALLIGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 4, BANAVAE VILLAGE, TALAKADU HOBLI, KAVERIPURA POST, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124. 18. SMT. HASSEN TAJ W/O. TOUFEEQ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 42, 2ND CROSS, DSC ROAD, SARAKKI GATE, JP NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078 19. SMT. KAVYA D M W/O. BHARATH H K, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 315, 10TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, KAVERIPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079. 20. SMT. NALINAKUMARI N W/O. SHREEDHARA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, -6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 2335/2176, 3RD CROSS, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079. 21. SRI. MAHESH S S/O. SHIVARAM S, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 35/1, RK MUTT ALYOUT, KG NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 019. 22. SMT. SAVITHA B G W/O. SATISH P, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 67, 5TH MAIN ROAD, AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, KATRIGUPPE EAST, BANGALORE - 560 085. 23. SMT. HEMANTH KUMARI H C W/O. HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: RAMOHALLI, KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 060. 24. SMT. LATHA K Y W/O. PRADEEP, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT MINTO HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT NO. 35, MCT QUARTERS, NEAR SATELLITE BUSS STOP, -7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 NEW GUDDADA HALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 060. 25. VIDYA RANI H K W/O. RAVI KUMAR V R, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 316, 10TH CROSS, KAVERIPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079. 26. SRI. SHIVARAJU N.S, S/O. SHIVAMUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VANI VILAS HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: NO.10, 2ND CROSS, DISOZA NAGARA, HOSKERE HALLI, B.S.K 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. 27. SRI. MANJUNATH L, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002, R/AT NO.423, 15TH CROSS, MEENAKSHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079. 28. SRI. SHANKAR GURU U.P S/O. LATE. PRATHIBAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: NO. 36, D STREET, FORT, -8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE - 560 002. 29. SRI. MAHENDRA P S/O. PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, W/AT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 002. R/AT: 893, 6TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, 6TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN, BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTION, KR ROAD FORT, BANGALORE - 560 002. 3. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT VICTORIA HOSPITAL, FORT, BANGALORE - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE SALARY OF THESE PETITIONERS AS -9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 PER OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 29.04.2019, AND 27.05.2019 BOTH ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURES-P AND Q, RETROSPECTIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2019 AND DIRECT THEM TO RELEASE THE ARRASES OF SALARY AS PER ANNEXURES-P AND Q AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER All the petitioners claiming to be Data Entry Operators (DEOs) working in the 2nd and 3rd respondents are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer: "a) Issue writ of mandamus OR order OR direction, directing the respondents to pay the salary of these petitioners as per Official Memorandumdt.29/04/2019, bearing No. ೆಂೈಸಂಸಂ/ಆ ಾ/17/2019-20, and Official Memorandum dt.27/05/2019, bearing No. ೆಂೈಸಂಸಂ/ಆ ಾ/17/2019-20, both issued by the respondent No.2, vide Annexure-P and Q, retrospectively with effect from 01/04/2019 and direct them to release the arrases of salary as per Annexure-P and Q. b) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their service as per Government Order dt.14/03/2013, bearing No. ಆಕುಕ 167 ಎಂಎಾ 2012 ೆಂಗಳರು, issued by the 1st respondent at Annexure-F, based on the service rendered and direct -10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 the respondents to give priority to the petitioners based on their seniority, if any recruitments are made. c) Call for the entire original file pertains to the Executive Order dt.06/10/2016, bearing No. ೆಂೈಸಂಸಂ/ ೕ(3)/ ಗು-05/2015-16, Annexure-M and examine the same. Further, direct the respondents to pay monthly salary to the petitioners, by the Respondent No.2 and 3 in future." 2. Heard Sri. Jagadeesh Goud Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners through video conference and Sri. B.J.Eswarappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 as well as Sri. P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners’ request for payment of salary in terms of Official Memorandum dated 29.04.2019 and Official Memorandum dated 27.05.2019 (Annexures-P and Q) and their request to consider their cases for regularization as per Government Order dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure-F) is not considered in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed between 2007-2008 -11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 and 2009 and they are still working in the 2nd and 3rd respondents-Institution. It is also submitted that during 2016 onwards, their services are being taken by 2nd and 3rd respondents through out source Agency. Learned counsel files a memo dated 27.02.2025 enclosing documents/representations made to the respondents on 11.03.2020, 28.07.2020 and 23.10.2020 requesting the respondents to regularize their services and also to pay salary. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Malipatil referring to statement of objection filed on behalf of respondent No.2 would submit that initially the petitioners were appointed temporarily for six months and their services were extended from time to time. Further he submits that services of the petitioners are taken through Agency and therefore, he submits that if the petitioners are not paid salary by the Agency, respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be made responsible. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have not submitted proper representation giving all the details or particulars of the petitioners so as to consider the same. In light of the above, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. -12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioners would be entitled for a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider their cases for regularization as well as for payment of salary in terms of Official Memorandum dated 29.04.2019 and Official Memorandum dated 27.05.2019 (Annexures-P and Q). 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially appointed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 temporarily as DEOs and their services is continued in respondent Nos.2 and 3-Institution from time to time. Para-4 of the statement of objection filed on behalf of respondent No.2 would clearly indicate that the services of the petitioners are given to Agency who has engaged the said employees. The petitioners are continuously working in respondent Nos.2 and 3-Institution from their date of appointment, which would be more than 12-15 years. If the petitioners are continued for such a long period, it would mean that there is necessity of their services in respondent Nos.2 and 3-Institution. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent decision in the case of Shripal and Another vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad -13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, has held at Paragraph Nos.15 and 16, reads as follows: “15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors -14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels : Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination : Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression : Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic -15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield : Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits : Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness : the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.” 9. The above decision would state that if the employees who are initially appointed on temporary basis are -16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8666 WP No. 27424 of 2019 continued for a very long period, their cases needs to be considered for regularization. 10. Learned counsel Sri. Malipatil for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that unless there is proper representation, respondents would not be in a position to consider the cases of the petitioners. 11. Taking note of the above submission, I am of the view that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to consider the present writ petition itself as representation of the petitioners for redressal of their grievance and pass appropriate order. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to treat the present writ petition itself as representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate order in the matter of salary of the petitioners and their request for regularization in accordance with law, within a period of three months from today. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49