- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 12036 OF 2022 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12057 OF 2022 (S-RES) IN WP No. 12036/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. GIRIYAPPA B KAMMAR S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D GROUP EMPLOYEE, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICE, HUBLI 580 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEDHAR G BIDRE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 4TH FLOOR, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. RUDRABHUSHAN C BENAKANALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 8.1.2020 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R2 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 12057/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER, K.H.B. HEAD OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009 ...PETITIONER (BYSRI. SHREEDHAR G BIDRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 2. COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.01.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R-2 AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, 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 COMMON ORDER Petitioners in both the above writ petitions are employees of 2nd respondent/Karnataka Housing Board (for short 'the Board'). They have prayed for a common prayer to quash the endorsements (Annexure-A in both petitions) dated 08.01.2020 and 11.01.2022 respectively, wherein request for regularization of their service, is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 rejected on the ground that they have not completed ten years of service as daily wagers as on the date of decision in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and they have also sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider their cases for regularization as permanent employees of the 2nd respondent/Board. 2. Since the prayer is common in both the writ petitions, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard Sri. Shreedhar G. Bidre, learned counsel for Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.J. Eswarappa, learned AGA for respondent No.1 in both the petitions as well as Sri Rudrabhushan B. Benakanahalli and Sri Shishira Amarnath, learned counsels for 2nd respondent. Perused the writ petitions papers. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 4. Petitioner in W.P.No.12036/2022 is working as Group D employee in the 2nd respondent/Board since 10.10.1996. Petitioner in W.P.No.12057/2022 is working as Driver in the 2nd respondents/Board from 01.01.1997. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners have been serving in the respondent/Board on daily wage basis for more than 25 years. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioners have requested the respondent/Board to regularize their services by submitting representations, but the same is rejected vide endorsements (Annexure-A) dated 08.01.2020 as well as endorsement dated 11.01.2022, in both the writ petitions respectively, on the ground that petitioners have not completed ten years of service as on the date of decision in UMA DEVI's case supra. 6. Learned counsel would submit that there is need of petitioners' services in the 2nd respondent / Board. Since there is need, the petitioners are being continued from time to time on daily wage basis. Learned counsel would - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8157/2024 dated 31.01.2025 in SRIPAL AND ANOTHER Vs. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD and contends that UMA DEVI's case cannot serve as a shield to justify the exploitative engagements persisting for years and submits that when the petitioners are continued for indefinite time, their cases shall have to be considered for regularization. Further learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are appointed against sanctioned posts by competent authority and they have served for more than ten years, which entitles them for consideration of their case for regularization. 7. Per contra, Sri Shishira Amarnath, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent referring to statement of objections filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent/ Board submits that petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services, since they have not completed ten years of service as on the date of UMA DEVI's decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further he would submit that they - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 are not appointed against vacant posts and they would not fulfill the conditions for regularization. Therefore, he justifies the action of the respondent/Board in rejecting the case of the petitioners for regularization under impugned endorsements (Annexure-A). 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that arise for consideration is as to "Whether the 2nd respondent/Board is justified in issuing impugned endorsements rejecting the request of the petitioners for regularization in the present fact situation?" My answer to the above point would be in the 'negative'. The 2nd respondent/Board is not justified in issuing impugned endorsements for the following reasons. 9. The petitioners are working in the 2nd respondent/Board since more than 25 years. The petitioner in W.P.No.12036/2022 is working as Group 'D' - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 employee from 10.10.1996 whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.12057/2022 is working as Driver in the 2nd respondent/Board from 01.01.1997. Admittedly as on this date the petitioners have completed more than 25 years of service. The statement of objection filed on behalf of 2nd respondent/Board would not state or it is not the case of the respondent/Board that petitioners are not appointed against sanctioned posts by the competent authority and that petitioners would not possess requisite qualification for the posts, to which they are appointed temporarily. At paragraph 53 of the UMA DEVI's case, it is made clear that the authorities could consider the cases of the daily wagers, if they have been appointed against vacant sanctioned posts by competent authority and if they possess requisite qualification as on the date of temporary appointment, if they have completed minimum requirement of ten years of service. The Board cannot take shelter of UMA DEVI's case to reject the cases of the petitioners for regularization only on the ground they have - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 not completed ten years of service as on the date of the decision of UMA DEVI's case. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision in SHRIPAL supra taking note of its earlier decision in JAGOO VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 3826 at paragraphs 14 and 15 has held as follows :- 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 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 judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India 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 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 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 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 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 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 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. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 • 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.” 11. In the cases on hand, petitioners are continued as Group 'D' and as 'Driver' uninterruptedly from 1996 and 1997 respectively. Continuing the services of the petitioners for more than 25 years would mean that there is need of petitioners' services. In the light of the above, I pass the following :- ORDER a. Both the writ petitions are allowed. b. The impugned endorsement (Annexure-A) bearing No.KHB/AB/Si.Shaa.-1/PR/70/2019-20 dated 08.01.2020 in W.P.No.12036/2022 and impugned endorsement bearing No. KHB/AB/Si.Shaa.- - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:7129 WP No. 12036 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12057 of 2022 1/PR/25/2021-22 dated 11.01.2022 in W.P.No.12057/2022, are quashed. c. The 2nd respondent/Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in the light of the observation made in SRIPAL case supra and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. d. Time for compliance : Three months from the date of uploading the order copy. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT:SNN