- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 17549 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: G MOHAN S/O LATE M. GONDARAJ, AGED 63 YEARS, RETIRED AS ASSISTANT COOK OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SCHOOL OF MINES, CORAMANDEL R/AT NO.7/5 MALLAPPA COMPOUND 4TH CROSS ROAD, ROBERTSON PET K.G.F-563118. KOLAR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.M NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SCHOOL OF MINES, CORAMANDEL DEPARATMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 K.G.K- 563 118, KOLAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CETIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2022 PASSED IN A.No-4556/2019 BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.03.2022 passed in Application No.4556/2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the Government by its Order No. ED 114 TPI 59 dated 23.07.1962 sanctioned the post of Assistant Cook, along with other posts, in the hostel of the School of Mines, Coramandel, KGF. After due process, the petitioner was appointed to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 post of Assistant Cook on a temporary basis on 03.02.1989 and reported for duty on 08.02.1989. Thereafter, without any break or interruption, he rendered continuous full-time service in the same post without any order confirming or absorbing his services into a pensionable post and, accordingly, retired from service on 30.03.2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation. 3. It is pertinent to observe that the petitioner was appointed after following due process and was extended the pay scale admissible to the post. Similarly, appointments were made after 01.07.1984 to the post of Assistant Cook and other posts on a temporary basis with a regular time scale of pay, and the remuneration for these posts was paid from the contingency fund, along with other monetary benefits. However, no orders were passed by the respondents absorbing the services of 14 Group ‘D’ employees, including the petitioner, into regular pensionable posts. As such, the petitioner, along with others, submitted a representation on 24.08.2007 seeking regularization/absorption of their services. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 4. In view of the above developments, certain employees among the said 14 employees, who had been appointed after 01.07.1984 and were drawing salary from the contingency fund, approached the Tribunal seeking consideration of their candidature for absorption of their services into pensionable posts by filing Applications in A.Nos.1349/2009, 2012/2015, and 2247/2011 to 2249/2011. 5. The Tribunal, vide order dated 28.07.2010, held that they were entitled to regularization as a one-time measure, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and Others - (2006) 4 SCC 1. Accordingly, their services were regularized. Drawing strength from the said order, as the petitioner was similarly situated, he filed an application before the Tribunal in Application No.7495/2016 seeking consideration of his representation and extension of the benefit of absorption into a pensionable post. The Tribunal, vide order dated 25.07.2018, directed the respondents to consider his representation. However, the petitioner's claim was rejected by the respondents vide endorsement dated 20.06.2019 on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 ground that he had joined service after 01.04.1984 and that his services could not be regularized, as there was no provision under the rules for such regularization. It was further stated that the persons who had joined earlier were regularized by framing special rules, which did not provide for the regularization of the petitioner, who had joined service on 08.02.1989. 6. Aggrieved by the endorsement rejecting his claim for absorption, the petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal in Application No.4556/2019. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the documents placed before it, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, as stated supra, on the ground that the petitioner had been paid out of the contingency fund and that the principles of regularization would not apply to his case in the absence of rules providing for absorption. The challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel Sri P.M. Nayak, for the petitioner and learned AGA Sri Harisha A.S., for respondents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 8. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that, admittedly, the Group ‘D’ employees were appointed against non- pensionable posts under a regular time scale of pay and were paid out of the contingency fund. They were not daily-wage employees, rather their service conditions were regulated by Government Order No. FD 65 SRP(1) 61 dated 11.02.1965. Hence, considering the same, the Tribunal, as well as this Court on an earlier occasion, held that persons appointed against non-pensionable posts on a regular time scale of pay out of the contingency fund were entitled to regularization in pensionable posts on par with daily-wage employees. These aspects of the matter are governed by the directions contained in paragraph No.53 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi's case supra, and the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the Official Memorandum dated 03.07.1984 at Annexure ‘E’, which provides for absorption into monthly-rated workers and specifies that such employees - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 should continue in non-pensionable posts on a permanent basis, on terms similar to those in the memorandum dated 16.08.1985, which also provides for absorption of persons employed on a regular time scale of pay and paid out of the contingency fund into monthly-rated workers, to be continued in non-pensionable posts on permanent basis. As such, he contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the petitioner’s application. He also relied upon the Government Order dated 23.07.1962, which shows that the petitioner’s post was sanctioned in respect of the hostel. Accordingly, he prays that the writ petition be allowed. 10. Per contra, learned HCGP, supporting the impugned order, contended that there is distinction between pensionable posts and non-pensionable establishments. All persons paid out of contingency funds on a regular scale of pay, such as the applicant/petitioner, are permanent employees appointed against non-pensionable posts created for specific purposes for carrying out duties with other service benefits, which are governed by the Government Order dated 11.02.1965. Therefore, the question of considering their permanency again - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 after their retirement on attaining superannuation does not arise for consideration. Since the scheme for regularization of daily-wage employees is not applicable to them. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and so also perused the documents made available before us. 12. The points that would arise for our consideration are: i) Merely because the employee is paid out of contingency fund and made to work in non-pensionable post, whether his claim for pension can be denied ignoring the fact that he has rendered his services for nearly three decades? ii) In the absence of challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of regularization of other similarly situated persons, whether the claim of the petitioner, who is similarly placed and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 worked under similar service conditions, can be rejected? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner?” 13. Since answers to the above questions would run-in- concurrence, the same are taken up together for consideration. 14. As could be gathered from the records, it is undisputed that the petitioner joined the service on 08.02.1989 pursuant to the Government Order dated 23.07.1962, against the sanctioned post of Assistant Cook, along with others, in the hostel of the School of Mines, Coramandel, KGF. No doubt, the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis, nevertheless, he rendered continuous full-time service in the said post till his retirement, i.e., 30.03.2019. The Government had issued directions on 03.07.1984 relating to the absorption of daily- rated workers into monthly-rated workers, which, inter alia, provided that monthly-rated workers should be continued in non-pensionable posts on a permanent basis. Further, on 16.03.1985, the Government issued directions relating to the absorption of persons employed on a regular time scale of pay - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 and paid out of the contingency fund into monthly-rated workers. 15. It is pertinent to observe from the above aspects that the petitioner was appointed after due process and, in addition thereto, he was working against a sanctioned post. However, he was placed under the category of a temporary appointment and was remunerated out of the contingency fund. Therefore, what requires our attention in the aforementioned scenario, in our collective opinion, is an examination of how and under what circumstances, a contingency fund can be utilized. This aspect requires less circumspection, as Article 267 of the Constitution of India is self-explanatory in this regard, which reads as follows; 267. Contingency Fund (1) Parliament may by law establish a Contingency Fund in the nature of an imprest to be entitled "the Contingency Fund of India" into which shall be paid from time to time such sums as may be determined by such law, and the said Fund shall be placed at the disposal of the President to enable advances to be made by him out of such Fund for the purposes of meeting unforeseen expenditure pending authorisation of such expenditure by - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 Parliament by law under article 115 or article 116. (2) The Legislature of a Slate may by law establish a Contingency Fund in the nature of an imprest to be entitled "the Contingency Fund of the state" into which shall be paid from time to time such sums as may be determined by such law, and the said Fund shall be placed at the disposal of the Governor of the State to enable advances to be made by him out of such Fund for the purposes of meeting unforeseen expenditure pending authorisation of such expenditure by the Legislature of the State by law under article 205 or article 206. (emphasis supplied) 16. Admittedly, a conjoint reading of the above provisions with the Government Orders referred to supra, would indicate that the fund was allotted to pay regular salary to the petitioner. However, the fact that, such funds under Article 267 or Articles 205/206 of the Constitution of India are intended only to address emergency situations and unforeseen expenditure, so as to enable the respondent–State Government to function smoothly in a democratic set-up, and not to be used in a routine manner, has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal while deciding the application. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 17. It is pertinent to observe that the case on hand is one such, where the need for employment, though initially arising out of an immediate requirement, at the time of appointment, continued as a requirement throughout the period during which the petitioner rendered services, and the petitioner was never disengaged from service. The period in question extends to nearly three decades. 18. In the above view of the matter, considering the similar situation, where the employees were denied pension on the ground that they were paid out of contingency funds, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of U.P., - (2019) 10 SCC 516, has held in paragraph Nos.29 to 31, 34 and 36 as under: "29. The submission has been urged on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh to differentiate the case between work-charged employees and regular employees on the ground that due procedure is not followed for appointment of work- charged employees, they do not have that much work pressure, they are unequal and cannot be treated equally, work-charged employees form a totally different class, their work is materially and qualitatively different, there cannot be any clubbing of the services of the work-charged employees with the regular service and vice versa, if a work- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 charged employee is treated as in the regular service it will dilute the basic concept of giving incentive and reward to a permanent and responsible regular employee. 30. We are not impressed by the aforesaid submissions. The appointment of the work-charged employee in question had been made on monthly salary and they were required to cross the efficiency bar also. How their services are qualitatively different from regular employees? No material indicating qualitative difference has been pointed out except making bald statement. The appointment was not made for a particular project which is the basic concept of the work-charged employees. Rather, the very concept of work- charged employment has been misused by offering the employment on exploitative terms for the work which is regular and perennial in nature. The work- charged employees had been subjected to transfer from one place to another like regular employees as apparent from documents placed on record. In Narain Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. [CA No. _2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5775 of 2018] the appellants were allowed to cross efficiency bar, after ‘8’ years of continuous service, even during the period of work-charged services. Narain Dutt Sharma, the appellant, was appointed as a work- charged employee as Gej Mapak with effect from 15-9-1978. Payment used to be made monthly but the appointment was made in the pay scale of Rs 200-320. Initially, he was appointed in the year 1978 on a fixed monthly salary of Rs 205 per month. They were allowed to cross efficiency bar also as the benefit of pay scale was granted to them during the period they served as work- - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 charged employees they served for three to four decades and later on services have been regularised time to time by different orders. However, the services of some of the appellants in few petitions/appeals have not been regularised even though they had served for several decades and ultimately reached the age of superannuation. 31. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work-charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularised. However, the period spent by them in the work- charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work- charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefitted by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work-charged establishment. 34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make Rule 3(8) valid and non- discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non- - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularised under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularised of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension." (emphasis supplied) 19. Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while addressing the issue of employees continued in non-pensionable posts and payment made to them out of the contingency fund, has clearly held that having remunerated them in the same manner and having taken their services for a long period, denial of pension for such service would be contrary to judicial dicta. It has also been clarified that the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), supra, would be applicable even to persons, who have retired from service before their absorption into pensionable posts, after having put in more than pensionable of service. 20. In addition to the above, recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India - 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055 while interpreting the central rules, where the employees were paid the same remuneration as of regular employee, but were titled temporary employees and - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 which became the root cause for denial of pension, proceeded to hold in paragraph Nos.39 to 41, 43, 58 to 63, 73, 74 and 76 as under : 39. This approach is firmly rooted in the constitutional mandate of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Any classification, resulting in denial of any benefits to a class of employees who are otherwise similarly situated in terms of duties and responsibilities would fall foul of constitutional ethos. Further, the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38, 39 and 43, cast a positive obligation upon the State to ensure social and economic justice, fair conditions of work, and a decent standard of life for labourers. Pension, in this context, is not a gratuitous benefit but a facet of social welfare and economic justice. 40. The concept of the State as a model employer, read in conjunction with the aforesaid constitutional mandate, reinforces the obligation upon the State to extend fair and equitable treatment to employees who have rendered long and continuous service and that the State cannot extract services of a permanent nature while denying corresponding benefits. 41. At this stage, it is also necessary to note that pension is not a bounty but a vested and enforceable constitutional right. This Court in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava7 has categorically held that pension is a hard- earned benefit amassed by an employee by virtue of long and continuous service and is in the nature of “property” within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 43. Let us, now, turn to the Scheme that is applicable to the facts of the present case. The principles emanating from Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra), as discussed hereinabove, are directly incorporated in formation of the said Scheme. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced herein: “…After rendering three years of continuous service with temporary status, the casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Grade ‘D’ employees of the Department of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group ‘D’ employees on regular basis.” 58. At this stage, it also becomes necessary to appreciate the distinction between different categories of employees engaged within the service framework in the Department of Posts. Broadly, four categories of employees emerge from the statutory and administrative work structure involved in the matter at hand, namely: (i) casual labourers; (ii) temporary status casual labourers; (iii) temporary Government employees; and (iv) regular Government employees. 59. A casual labourer is merely a daily-rated worker engaged on need basis and is entitled only to daily wages for the period during which work is performed. Such employee does not possess any structured service status nor entitled to any service benefits ordinarily available to Government employees. 60. The second category is that of a temporary status casual labourer. The conferment of temporary status not only initiates the process - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 of integration of such employee within a structured service framework but extends certain service protections and benefits under the Scheme. Nevertheless, such employee remains a temporary status casual labourer and does not become a temporary Government servant. 61. The third category is that of temporary Government employees which are governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, while the fourth category comprises of regular Government employees governed by the regular service rules applicable to permanent Government servants. 62. It is to be noted that these aforesaid four categories are not to be conflated as stages required to be gone through to become a regular employee. It may be pointed here that a casual labourer can directly become a regular employee, if the Scheme provides for such transition. A temporary Government employee, however, definitely has two stages leading to permanent employment i.e. initial appointment as temporary Government employee and upon confirmation in service, his status is changed to regular government employee. 63. For casual labourers, the Scheme provides for a progression to regular employment. Initially the employee enters service as a casual labourer. Thereafter, upon satisfying the conditions prescribed under Clause 1 of the Scheme, he/she is conferred temporary status and continues under such status. Upon completion of the prescribed conditions and subject to the applicable Recruitment Rules, the employee becomes eligible for regularisation against Group ‘D’ posts and ultimately regularized and appointed as regular employee on availability of vacancies. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 73. The contention of the Respondents that the Appellants were paid out of contingencies and therefore stood excluded from the purview of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 also cannot be accepted in the particular facts of the present case. Such exclusion may have relevance at the stage of initial engagement as casual labourers. However, the service conditions of the Appellants underwent a substantial transformation upon extension of benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees. The continued reliance by the Respondents upon the original mode of engagement, while simultaneously extending pay parity, increments, GPF facilities, leave benefits and other service entitlements akin to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, would amount to selectively accepting one part of the Scheme while disregarding the other. Such an approach would defeat the very object underlying the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992. Once parity in service benefits with temporary Group ‘D’ employees is consciously extended under the Scheme, pensionary benefits flowing under Rule 10(1-B) of the Rules of 1965 cannot be selectively denied by ignoring or overlooking the statutory right. 74. The argument founded upon financial burden is equally untenable. Pension is not a matter of grace dependent upon the financial convenience of the employer, but a deferred wage earned through long years of service. As already noticed hereinabove, this Court has recognised pension as a constitutional right in the nature of property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India as held in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Case (supra) and it, therefore, cannot be denied on the plea of financial burden. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 76. The question as framed in para 32 above stands answered as follows: ‘A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularisation.’ " 21. This position of law was also reiterated by another Co-ordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam - 2026 SCC OnLine SC 909 while addressing the issue of work-charged employees who are paid out of contingency fund. 22. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Another vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi in W.P.No.37850/2025, where the employees therein were also paid cumulatively, has held in paragraph Nos.13 to 25 as under: “13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in DHARM SINGH AND OTHERS (supra) after noticing UMADEVI (supra) and subsequent cases in the matter of regularization at paragraph 13, 17 and 18, it observed as follows: “13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not “fulltime” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” 14. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI THYAGARAJU VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER considering identical contention raised by the petitioners/State, at paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 has held as follows: “21. The contention of the State that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 and as the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Constitutional Scheme, he would not be entitled for regularization is untenable and cannot be countenanced. It is too late in the day after having continued the petitioner on temporary/daily wage basis for more than 35 years, the contention that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme, is misplaced. It is not open at this length of time for the State to contend that the petitioner’s appointment is illegal. It is for the State to think and take a decision before appointing a person on temporary basis. A person who is offered employment on daily wage or temporary basis would have no choice in the days of unemployment and he would be compelled to accept employment on temporary or daily wage basis due to pressing needs. The State, after appointing a person on daily wage or temporary basis, cannot be permitted at this length of service to contend that his appointment is contrary to Article 14 or Constitutional Scheme. The State has an obligation to comply Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme before making appointment. Having made appointments even to say contrary to Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme, it cannot blame the employee for accepting such employment, that too after 35 years. 22. Learned Additional Government Advocate places reliance on the decision in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) to contend that a - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 daily wager who is appointed contrary to law is not entitled for regularization. The decision in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI (3) (supra). Paragraph 53 of the UMADEVI (3) (supra) provides for regularization of a daily/temporary employee on certain circumstances, if he fulfills the conditions laid down therein. Since the petitioner herein fulfills the criteria laid down for regularization in UMADEVI (3) (supra), the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) would not be an impediment to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. Moreover, based on the facts, we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed to a vacant post of Hawaldar, as indicated in the order of appointment dated 27.12.1984 (Annexure-A8). 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. M.L.KESARI AND OTHERS5 explained its earlier decision in UMADEVI (3) (supra), at paragraphs 7, 8 and 11, which we reproduce as follows: “7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against “regularisation” enunciated in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], if the following conditions are fulfilled: - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the services of those - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a onetime measure. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] directed that such one- time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006). 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily- wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] as a one-time measure.” 24. In the case of JAGGO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS , the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the regularization of part time/contractual employee and at paragraphs 10, 12, 13, 14, 21 and 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows: “10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part- time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 12. Despite being labelled as “parttime workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service. 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long- term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long- serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.” 25. In the case on hand also, the petitioner is continued on daily wage/temporary basis for nearly 35 years. After extracting regular work from the petitioner, the action of the respondents in - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 rejecting the petitioner’s request for regularization at this length of time is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair and opposed to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 23. The decisions cited supra make it clear that the initial appointment of an employee on a temporary basis against contingency funds loses significance, when such an employee is continued in service for a considerable period. Admittedly, the petitioner has rendered continuous service for a period of 30 years as Assistant Cook that too in the sanctioned post. As such, the service so rendered is in furtherance of the regular requirements of the State and not merely for any emergent purpose. Therefore, denial of pensionary benefits solely on the ground of the nature of initial appointment would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Pension being a valuable right, its denial after long and continuous service cannot be sustained. 24. Moreover, it is also an admitted position that the orders of regularization passed by the Tribunal in A.Nos.1349/2009, 2012/2015, and 2247/2011 to 2249/2011 in - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 respect of similarly situated employees were never questioned by the respondent–State Government, and the same have already been implemented and has thus, attained finality. Having accepted the said decisions and extended the benefit of regularization to one class of persons, the State Government ought not to have treated the petitioner with a different yardstick, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India - 2026 SCC OnLine SC 200. 25. In view of the aforementioned observations, we are of the considered opinion that the answer to the questions raised above would be in the negative. We further hold that the Tribunal fell short in considering the position of law and appreciating the facts in proper perspective. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that interference with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is called for and therefore, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27402-DB WP No. 17549 of 2022 ii. The order dated 14.03.2022 passed in Application No.4556/2019 by the Tribunal is set-aside. iii. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner in pensionable post of Assistant Cook upon completion of ten year of service from his appointment, with all consequential service and pensionary benefits. iv. Respondents are directed to treat the length of service of the petitioner from the date of his joining into service till the date of regularization of service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/V List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20