- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 988 OF 2019 (S-REG) BETWEEN: 1. SOMASHESKARA H.N. S/O TRK NAIK, 44 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR CHIKKAGANDASI-573 119 ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT RESIDING AT: HEGGATTA AT POST GANDASI HOBLI-573 119 ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. 2. H.N. KANTHA S/O NANJAPPA, 49 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR ADIHALLI-573 119, GANDSI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT RESIDING AT: LALANAKERE POST GANDSI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. 3. DODDEGOWDA S/O KUNTEERAIAH, 55 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR GANDSI HANDPOST -573 119 ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT RESIDING AT: NARAYANA GHATAHALLI TALALUR POST, 573103 ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. 4. DHARMASHIVAPPA S/O SANNEGOWDA, 45 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 CHIDARAVALLI UNIT-573 119 T. NARASIPUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT R/O: SANKODANAHALLI, JAJOOR POST ARASIKERE TALUK-573 103 HASSAN DISTRICT. 5. MAHADEVA SHASTRY S/O SIDDARAMAIAH 55 YEARS, WORKING AS SHOWROOM ASSISTANT, MYSORE-570 001 RESIDING AT: K. HAGALAHALLI K. HONNALAGERE POST-571433 MADDURU TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 6. S. RAGHU S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA 32 YEARS, WORKING AS SHOWROOM ASSISTANT MYSORE-570 001 RESIDING AT: NO.162/1, AMBEDKAR BHAVAN YARAGANAHALLI-570 011 MYSORE DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.S.Y.RODAGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VITC BUILDINGS, KASTURABA ROAD, BENGALURU -560001 …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. C.M. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their case for regularization of their service. 2. The petitioners contend that they were working in various branches of the office of the respondent No.2 for more than 10 years continuously. They contend that they had approached this Court seeking regularization of their service in W.P.No.10745-10756/2012, which was disposed off directing the respondent No.2 to consider their case for regularization and as and when it became inevitable to recruit people then to provide preference and priority to the petitioners. They contend that the respondent No.2 had prepared a list of temporary - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 employees and their names were found at serial Nos.33, 34, 17, 43, 18 and 46 respectively. They contend that the respondent No.2 had regularized the services of 17 persons in February 2011, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1486/2010 and connected matters. The employees who were similarly placed approached the respondent No.2 for regularization of their services, as they had put in more than 10 to 20 years of service. In that regard, the board of respondent No.2 met on 29.06.2015 and resolved to send proposals to regularize the services of 33 employees by authorizing the Managing Director to take appropriate steps. The same was communicated to the respondent No.2 vide a letter dated 10.07.2015. 3. The respondent No.2 addressed a communication to the respondent No.1 on 13.11.2015, informing it that it had generated profit during the year 2014-2015 and that it could regularize the services of 33 employees. The Commissioner for Industrial Development and the Director of the Department of Industries and Commerce addressed a letter dated 02.12.2015 to the respondent No.1 and opined that the regularization of 33 employees may be granted, subject to the condition that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 respondent No.2 shall bear the salary of the employees so regularized. Following this, the respondent No.2 submitted a letter dated 28.04.2016 to the respondent No.1 enclosing therewith an extract of the resolution of the board meeting held on 28.09.2015 on subject No.129.11 and requested permission to regularize the services of the persons who had worked for more than 7 years. The petitioners contend that it was mentioned in the aforesaid resolution that the services of the 33 employees was necessary to the respondent No.2. 4. The respondent No.2 then addressed a communication dated 07.05.2016, enclosing therewith the Cadre and Recruitment Rules (henceforth referred to as 'C and R Rules' for short), as approved by it and sought sanction for further action. The respondent No.2 then conducted a board meeting on 11.07.2016, where it was resolved to regularize the services of the employees who had served for more than 7 years on honorarium and further, it was reiterated to request the respondent No.1 to grant sanction to regularize the services of all the employees. The petitioners contend that they came to know that though there was a board resolution and the respondent No.2 had sent the proposals to the respondent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 No.1, the same did not progress from that stage. The petitioners therefore have approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider regularizing their services. 5. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been serving the respondent No.2 for more than 10 years uninterruptedly and without any blemish. He contends that all the petitioners are qualified to be appointed to the post in which they are working on daily wages. He therefore contends that, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal No.1486/2010 and connected matters, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 should be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners. He also contends that the respondent No.2 instead of undertaking a regular recruitment, has exploited the petitioners by continuing them in service on a temporary basis. He therefore contends that the status quo cannot continue, as the petitioners cannot be left in the lurch. He therefore contends that suitable directions be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 6. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.1 contending inter alia that after the petitioners were trained, they were appointed on honorarium basis under a scheme. It is contended that some of the petitioners who fulfilled the norms as laid down in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], had approached this Court in W.P.No.10745-756/2012 seeking regularization. It is stated that one of the petitioners, Sri.S.Raghu was not a party to W.P.No.10745-756/2012 and therefore, he was not entitled for the reliefs granted in W.P.No.10745-756/2012. 7. It is contended that a proposal to regularize the services of the petitioners was submitted to the respondent No.1 for approval. Since the respondent No.2 is a government undertaking, the government was pleased to seek the opinion of the Finance Department for regularization of 33 employees. The Finance Department opined that due to the recurring losses, the regularization of services of the petitioners would be an additional burden to the respondent No.2. Therefore, it did not accept the proposal to regularize the services of the petitioners. It is contended that the draft Cadre and Recruitment Rules submitted by the respondent No.2 to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 respondent No.1, was rejected by the government at a meeting held on 07.11.2019. It is also contended that the case of the petitioners did not fall within the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Umadevi, referred supra. It is contended that the petitioners are all employed on honorarium basis and not on regular basis. Hence, the request of the petitioners for regularization cannot be granted unless they comply the conditions laid down in the government order bearing No. CI 137 CSC 2021, dated 22.03.2022. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization. 9. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, SLP (C) No.5580/2024, dated 20.12.2024, where the Apex Court considered cases of Safai Karamcharis for regularization in view of their long service on daily wages. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in writ - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 petition No.100387/2023 where an employee of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (henceforth referred to as 'APMC' for short), Hubballi was ordered to be regularized. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1. 11. The fact that the petitioners were all employed with the respondent No.2 on honorarium basis is not in dispute. The fact that the petitioners have been working for more than 10 years in the respondent No.2 is also not in dispute. If the services of the petitioners have been used continuously by the respondent No.2 without any break, it cannot be said that the services of the petitioners were not necessary for the respondent No.2. The very fact that at the meeting of the board of the respondent No.2 on 28.09.2015 it was resolved to regularize the services of all the employees makes it evident that the respondent No.2 was in need of the services of the petitioners. Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioners were employed on temporary basis for an enormously long period. The communication dated 13.11.2015 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 showed that the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 respondent No.2 had registered profit during the year 2014- 2015. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 should have taken immediate steps for regularization of the services of the petitioners. Unfortunately, the respondents have allowed time to flow even after the Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of the Department of Industries and Commerce addressed a letter dated 02.12.2015 to the respondent No.1 that the regularization was made on the condition that the respondent No.2 would bear the salary of the employees regularized. The Hon’ble Apex Court's decision of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi was explained by it in its judgment in State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L.Kesari and Others [(2010) 9 SCC 247] and later, in the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others [(2024) 1 S.C.R. 1230]. Likewise in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, referred supra the Court proceeded to grant regularization, which was again followed in the case of Shripal and Another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No.8157/2024, dated 31.01.2025. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Division Bench of this Court also considered - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 the question of regularization of services of an employee in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The Division Bench by relying upon the judgement in the case of Smt.Shankremma vs. The Agriculture Officer and Another, in W.P.No.83563- 564/2012, had granted relief to a daily wage employee in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hubballi. 12. Though the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi referred supra had directed the governments of the States and the Union Government not to engage people on daily wages or on contract basis, as that would deprive other citizens of equal opportunity, yet this Court has noticed that the State Government and its undertakings continue to appoint people on contract basis or on daily wage basis. The more the Courts interfere and direct regularization of daily wage employees, it emboldens the State Government to indulge in such appointments. This somehow has to end, failing which the purpose of Article 16 of the Constitution of India would be rendered redundant. People in the echelons of the government would continue to recruit their near and dear ones on daily wages and the State Government would continue to exploit such persons, not only denying them their fundamental right of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 livelihood but also denying the fundamental right of various citizens under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, time has come where Courts have to take a proactive measure to not only direct regularization of those employees who have put in more than 10 to 20 years of service but also, at the same time direct that the past service of such regularized employees should be taken into consideration for the purpose of pay and pension and permit the State Government to recover the financial impact from the officers concerned who did not take steps for discontinuation of such daily wagers and for not taking steps for a regular recruitment. This may, to a certain extent put an end to the pernicious practice of engaging daily wagers and exploit them by underpaying them. 13. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners forthwith. iii. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the past services of the petitioners shall be - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12623 WP No. 988 of 2019 counted for the purpose of fixation of pay and pension. this shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41