- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 36342 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VASANTHAKUMARI W/O RANGASWAMI T., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.633, 2ND CROSS, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 082. EMP ID NO. 15792 2. SMT SHOBHA H. H. W/O KRISHNAMURTHY K. R. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A 33, 6TH CROSS, DODDANAGAMANGALA ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR, NAGANATHAPURA, BENGALURU SOUTH, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU – 560 100. EMP ID NO.15796 3. SMT. SHIVALEELA V., W/O B. S. KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.59/21, CHIKKAKAMMANAHALLI CHURCH ROAD, T JOHN COLLEGE BACK GATE, CHIKKAKAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 083. EMP-ID NO.14590 4. SMT. PRATHIBHA R. W/O NAGARAJA S.A. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 R/AT NO.17/43-6, 6TH CROSS, 30TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BEHIND SREE HARI KALYAN MANTAPA BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085 EMP ID NO.19184 5. SMT. MADHAVI. G. W/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.15, MOUNT JOY ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH GAVIPURAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 019 EMP ID NO. 14592 6. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA T. N. W/O B. V. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, GEETHANJALI NILAYA, GAJANANA LAYOUT, TOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 073. EMP ID NO. 15786 7. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI B. S. W/O B.S.CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/ATNO.428/B, 4TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR HOTEL MATHRU SAGAR, SRINAGAR, B.S.K.1ST STAGE, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU SOUTH BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU – 560 050. EMP 10 NO. 15821 8. SMT. REKHA W/O B. MURALI MADHAVEN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.34/2, 2ND CROSS, NEAR BIG BAZAR, RAM RAO LAYOUT, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HOSAKARSHALL, BENGALURU – 560 085. EMP ID NO.14734 9. SMT. VIMALA C., W/O SHIVAKUMAR K.C. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.384, 9TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, DEEPANJALI NAGAR, NEAR SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 026 EMP ID NO. 15826 10. SMT. SHANTHI S. W/O E SELVA PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/A, 5TH ‘A’ CROSS, SUBBANNA GARDEN, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 040. EMP ID NO. 14512 11. SMT. RUKMINI K. W/O HARISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.354, EWS, 6TH MAIN, KENGERI UPANAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 060. EMP ID NO. 14519 12. SMT. SREELADEVI HARASUR MUTT W/O GIRISH K.P., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.580, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, RANGANATHAPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 079. EMP ID NO. 14682 13. SMT. B. H. PUSHPALATHA W/O NAGENDRA S., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 NO.14-2, MACHOHALLI, COLONY, KARNATAKA STOP, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 091. EMP ID NO.14696 14. SMT. NAGARATHNA V. W/O KANTHA RAJU C. R. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/ATNO.174, SLUM BOARD, CHIKKABOMMASANDRA YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH, YALAHANKA, KARNATAKA – 560 064. EMP ID NO. 14756 15. SMT. VANITHA W/O V. SASIDHARAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.559, C-4 BLOCK KHB COLONY, PSK NAIDU ROAD COX-TOWN, DODDIGUNTA, BENGALURU FRASER TOWN BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 005 EMP ID NO.14585 16. SMT. M. R. JAYANTHI W/O N JAYADEVA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/ATNO.08, SONDEKOPPA ROAD RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, BEHIND COURT HALL NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU – 562 123 EMP ID NO. 14526 17. SMT. D. G. LAKSHMI W/O S. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.C2-30, DOS HOUSING COLONY, INDIRANAGAR OLD LAND, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH HAL II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 008 EMP ID NO. 14591 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 18. SMT. THANGA JECINTHA ANITHA W/O R. RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.9/1, 6TH CROSS, ADITHYA LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, DOORVANINAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 016 EMP ID NO14516 19. SMT. MUKTHAMBA HARASURMUTT W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.723, 4TH MAIN, KENGERI UPANAGARA NEAR SHANKAR NAG CIRCLE BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 060 EMP. ID NO.14736 20. SRI. SHAKILA C. W/O R. JAYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/ATNO.356, 2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE, V. K. ROAD KUVEMPU NAGAR, JALAHALLI EAST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 014 EMP ID NO. 14740 21. SMT. USHA D., W/O N. DINAKAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.1636, 1ST CROSS, RAM MOHAN PURAM, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 021. EMP ID NO. 14735 22. SMT. K. CHANDRAKALA D/O KESHAVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/ATNO.1260, 9TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 086 EMP ID NO. 14694 23. SMT. K. R. SUVARNA C/O N. R. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/ATNO.638, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH 'A' CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 086. EMP ID NO. 14687 24. SMT. SHAHANAJ BEGAUM W/O P. BHASHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.252, 6TH CROSS, GONGONDA HALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 039 EMP ID NO.15831 25. SMT. GEETHA V. W/O NAGARAJA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.21, NAGUTARU NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, PRAKHRUTI NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BYADARAHALLI ULLAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 091. ENP ID NO. 14688 26. SMT. NALINA T. G. W/O T. M. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.101, 2ND CROSS, HOYSALANAGAR, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU – 560 072. EMP ID NO.15828 27. SMT. CHANDRAKALA V. W/O NANJUNDEGOWDA H. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.18/249, SOWMYA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 BAPUJI NAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 026. EMP ID NO.14666 28. SMT. VASANTHAKUMARI B. K. W/O H. L. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/ATNO.23, 8TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 096. EMP ID NO.14653 29. SMT. SHIVALEELA GODEKAR W/O PARASHURAM M., AGE 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.15/8, 2ND A CROSS ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 096 EMP ID NO 14671 30. SMT. JAYASHREE T., C/O NANJAPPA C., AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/ATNO.19, 4TH CROSS, SUBEDAR PALYA, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 022 EMP ID NO. 14741 31. SMT. B. S. JAYAMMA W/O J.S.GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.134, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, NEAR SHAKTHIGANAPATHI TEMPLE BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. EMP ID NO. 14689 32. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O LATE LAKSHMANA SHETTY S. L. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1103, 4TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040 EMP ID NO.15801 33. SMT. SHARAVATHI R., W/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.24, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, NEAR LIBRARY, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 040 EMP ID NO15800 34. SMT. SUNITHA. V. W/O MAHADEVA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O NO. 58/5, 8TH CROSS KAREKALLI, KAMAKSHI PALYA, BENGALURU NORTH, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079, EMP ID NO. 14747 35. SRI VIJAY RAJ URS S/O SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO. 1/1, 3RD TEMPLE ROAD, SIDDANTHI BLOCK, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 003 EMP ID NO 14757 36. SMT. ROOPA K. S. W/O KRISHNA MURTHY T., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO. 238, 6TH B CROSS, DOMMALURU LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 71 EMP ID NO.4536 37. SMT. D. G. TANUJA W/O G. KUMAR - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.61, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, SR NAGAR, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 027 EMP ID NO.14510 38. SMT. SRIMATHI M. C., D/O M. CHINNAPPA KNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO.57, 3RD CROSS, BORE BANK ROAD N. C. COLONY, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 046 EMP NO. 14595 39. SMT. PATHIMUNISA W/O SHEIKH RIRDOSE AHMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO. 12, 7TH CROSS, ANEPALYA, ADUGODI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 030 EMP ID NO.14508 40. SMT. NETHRAVATHI H. R., W/O VISHWANATH M., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O NO.176, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, SOUNDARYA LAYOUT, SIDEDAHALLI NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 073. EMP ID NO.14508 41. SMT. VARALAKSHMI G., W/O RAMESH BABU (LATE) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO.204, YELLAMMA TEMPLE STREET, NEAR ITC ROAD CYCLE SHOP, SUBBARAYANAPALYA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 033 EMP ID NO.14552 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 42. SMT. B. K. HUCHAMMA W/O C. R. MUDALALAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.390, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, FURTHER EXTENSION, VIVEK NAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU – 560 047 EMP ID NO. 14525 43. SMT. SELVARANI W/O K. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO. 1/83, SIDDARAMAPPA COMPOUND, NEAR SHALINI SCHOOL, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 084. EMP ID NO.14524 44. SMT. RAMALAKSHMI W/O R. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO.190, 10TH CROSS, NEW BENGALURU LAYOUT SAGAYAPURAM, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 084. EMP ID NO. 15783 45. SMT. FARZANA AKTHER W/O P. KHAJA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NO. 301, LAKSHMI RESIDENCY HENNUR MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, BEHIND DR. CHANDRASHEKHAR SPEECH AND HEARING HOSPITAL LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 084 EMP ID NO.14562 46. SMT. NAYARA BANU W/O ABDUL KHADEER AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O NO.27, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, TAHA MAASJID BHARATHMATHA LAYOUT VENKATESHAPURA, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 BENGALURU – 560 045 EMP ID NO.14561 47. SMT, FAHMEEDA BEGUM W/O ASID ULLA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.2368, 3RD CROSS, RAMA TENT ROAD, NEAR SYEDA MASJID KUSHAL NAGAR, BENAGLURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 045 EMP ID NO.14559 48. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O PACHANDI V. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O NO.133/25, B NANDINI ROAD, NEAR CORPORATION BANK, RAMASWAMYPALYA, KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 033 EMP ID NO.14548 49. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O HOMBAIAH H. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O NO.210, 9TH B MAIN ROAD BEHIND MAXWELL PUBLIC SCHOOL, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 043 EMP ID NO.14535 50. SMT. N. GOWRAMMA W/O B. NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO.677, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KAMALA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 079 EMP ID NO.14686 51. SMT A. SAROJA W/O VIJAY KUMAR - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O NO. 18, 4TH CROSS, OPPOSITE TO RATION SHOP JAIBHARATHI NAGAR, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR, B ENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 033 EMP ID NO. 14539 52. SMT. SHAMEEN BANU W/O AYAZ AHMED, A GED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO. 155 ANAM ENCLAVE, 1ST FLOOR, ASHWATH NAGAR, THANISANDRA, SHIVARAM KARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 077 EMP ID NO.15773 53. SMT. GIRIJA N., W/O RAMACHANDRA S R AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O NO.113/1, 5TH A CROSS POORNA PRAGNA LAYOUT, KATHRIGUPPE BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085 EMP ID NO.15804 54. SMT. RASHEEDA BEGUM W/O MUBATAK SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NO.9, 14TH STREET, CHANDINI CHOWK ROAD CROSS H K P ROAD, NEAR HARI MASJID, BBMP CENTRAL, K H P ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 051 EMP ID NO.15812 55. SMT PREMAVATHAMMA M., W/O M. JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO 5, 1ST MAIN ROAD, A G RANGASWARMAPPA ROAD, SRIRANGA NAGAR BSK 3RD STAGE, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 085 EMP ID NO. 15833 56. SMT. GAYATHRI K. V. W/O N. SHIVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.28/5, 5TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, CHOWDAPPA LAYOUT, BAPUJINAGAR NEAR GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC FACTORY BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU – 560 026 EMP ID NO.14564 57. SMT G. VARALAKSHMI W/O KANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O NO.175, 18TH CROSS, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE HOYSALA NAGARA, RAMAMURTHY NAGARA, DOORVANINAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 016 EMP ID NO.14515 58. SMT. BEULAH P., W/O MAHENDRAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.64, SHIVANA TEMPLE STREET SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, ARABIC COLLEGE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 045 EMP ID NO. 14584 59. SMT A. AMUDHA W/O BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO.24/5-1, PARK ROAD, COX TPWN, JEEVANAHALLI, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 005 EMP ID. 14748 60. SMT. M. JYOTHI RANI W/O RAJU M., - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O NO.349, KHB COLONY PSK NAIDU ROAD, DODDIGUNTA COX TOWN, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005 EMP ID NO. 14547 61. SMT J. JAYALAKSHMI W/O JAYAGURU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O NO.277, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAHAMATH NAGAR, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032 EMP ID NO. 14567 62. SMT. NIKHATH UNNISA C/O LATE HIDAYATH ULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO.277, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAHAMATH NAGAR, R T NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032 EMP ID NO. 14567 63. SMT SHANTHALAKSJMI N., D/O NARAIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O 3606/A, 3RD CROSS, GAYATHRI NAGARA, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU – 560 021 EMP ID NO. 14551 64. SMT SUDHAMANI J N W/O VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO.46, MUTHAPPA BLOCK 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, GANGANAGARA, BES SCHOOL R T NAGARA, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 032 EMP ID NO. 14595 65. SMT RADHA K. C/ G K. MUKUNDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 R/O NO. 308, 4TH FLOOR, SRI KRISHNA SHRINE APARTMENT, SWAGATHA LAYOUT, NEAR LAST BUS STOP VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 097 EMP ID NO. 19172 66. SMT. EMILY JENCY RANI D., D/O N. DAVID AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NO.10, 2ND CROSS, SBI BANK COLONY, OPP. BARATH PETROL BANK, ANANDAPURA, T. C. PALYA, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 036 EMP ID NO. 14597 67. SMT N. VIJAYAMMA W/O HEMANTH KUMAR M., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O NO.531, 12TH CROSS, NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 057 EMP ID NO. 15835 68. SMT GAYATHRI W/O RANGANATH H K AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O NO236, NEW NO.21, 9TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 096 EMP ID NO. 14704 69. SMT. REVATHI N., W/O P. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O 47, 4TH CROSS, OPP. GEETHA MANDIRA, SRIRAMAPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 021 EMP ID NO. 15799 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 70. SMT. PUSHPAKALA G.C., W/O V. ANANTHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO.141, 1ST MAIN RPAD, II PHASE, MANJUNATH NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010 EMP ID NO. 14583 71. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI P., W/O RAGHAVENDRA V., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO. 6/A, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BAPUJI NAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 026 EMP ID NO. 15910 72. SMT ROOPAVATHI G. R., C/O G. K. KAMRAJ, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NO.27, MATRU SHREE NILAYA GAJANANA LAYOUT, SHIVAKUMAR SWAMIJI LAYOUT ROAD THOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, NAGASANDRA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 073 EMP ID NO. 14745 73. SMT. AROKIA MARY D/O ANTHONY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO.7/1, 5TH CROSS, DODDIGUNTE, COX TOWN, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 005 EMP ID NO. 14578 74. SMT MALA P., W/O RAMALINGAM V., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NO.20, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR VADANURU RAMALINGAM CHOUTRY, LAKSHMI NARANAYANA PURAM BENGALURU – 560 021 EMP ID NO. 14668 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 75. SMT USHA MURTHY R., D/O M. RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.12, 11TH B CROSS, VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003. EMP ID NO. 14729 76. SMT GEETHA @ GAYATHRI W/O SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO. 214, 9TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BCC LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 040 EMP ID NO. 19186 77. SMT. LATHA C., C/O G. DINESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O NO.321, 4TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, J P NAGARA, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU – 560 078 EMP ID NO. 15846 78. SMT GEETHA BAI N., W/O S. ESHWAR RAO, JADHAV R/O NO.1428, MUNIKEMPANNA LAYOUT, H A FARM POST, DASARAHALLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 024 EMP ID NO. 15846 79. SMT. K M MANJULA W/O UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O NO.317/2, KARNATAKA SANGAHA ROAD, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 013 EMP ID NO. 15907 80. SMT. KAVITHA S., W/O YOGANARASIMHA M. N. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 R/O NO.916, M-42, CHAMUNDI NAGARA MAIN ROAD CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 032 EMP ID NO. 14569 81. SMT JAYALAKSHMI A., W/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.13, 8TH CROSS, BEHIND MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 085 EMP ID NO. 15843 82. SMT MANJULA G. V., W/O JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O NO.129/130, RAMAMANDIR ROAD SARAKKI NAGAR, J P NAGAR 1ST PHASE J P NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078 EMP ID NO. 15806 83. SMT UMA RAMESH N., C/O RAMESH N., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO.35, 10TH CROSS, KAILASAM ROAD, BENDRE NAGAR, KADIRENAHALLI, BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070 EMP ID NO. 15778 84. SMT. RAMAMANI S R C/O MADHUSUDHAN K S AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O NO.105, 1ST FLOOR, C BLOCK, NANDI SHELTER, 11TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR HOUSING SOCIETY, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 061 EMP ID NO. 15802 85. SMT B. A. GOWRI, W/O K M RAJU - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O NO.213, 5TH MAIN, NEAR SKANDA SCHOOL, NANDA KUMAR LAYOUT, AREHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU – 560 061 EMP ID NO. 15781 86. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O SRINIVAS M., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO.5, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NAGASANDRA CIRCLE BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU 560 028 EMP ID NO. 15832 87. SMT LATHA R., W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O NO. 305, 13TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, ATTIGUPPE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 040 EMP ID NO. 15824 88. SMT. INDIRA W/O M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O NO.4, 3RD MAIN ROAD, BHAIRAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 072 EMP ID NO. 15839 89. SMT. GEETHA RANI C/O SHANKAR R., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NO.21/1, RANCE ELITI S-1, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, SVG NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA BENGALURU – 560 072 EMP ID NO. 15775 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 90. SMT RAMAA K. W/O THANDAVARAJA N., NO.8,, 1ST B MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, KANTEERAVA STUDIO CIRCLE, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH – 560 096 91. SMT MANJULA V., C/O SRIRAM P. V., NO.21(611), 6TH A CROSS, 10TH MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI LAYOUT, HONNUR CROSS, BENGALURU NORTH, KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G. GURUMATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SADHANA S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(ADMIN) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R4; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 18.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN NO. B12(5G)PR/68/2022-23 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-A 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.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:- “a) A writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 18.05.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent in No.B12(5G)PR/68/2022-23 produced herewith as Annexure-A; b) A writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent No.1 to regularize the services of the Petitioners in the 2nd Respondent Corporation and to extend all the consequential benefits. c) Such other writs or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: The petitioners have been working as Craft Teachers, Tailoring Teachers, Coir Teachers and the repairers of Sewing Machines in respondent No.2-Corporation. The petitioners have - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 been working as stated supra for more than 20 years as on today. The petitioners and several other similarly situated employees submitted the representation dated 01.03.2022 seeking regularisation of their work in the respondent No.2-corporation. The respondent No.3 issued an Endorsement dated 18.05.2023 at Annexure-A stating that there is no provision under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the BBMP and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement/ at Annexure - A dated 18.05.2023 and seeking directions for their regularisation, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 - BBMP and perused the material on record. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned endorsement in order to point out that the only reason assigned by the respondent No.3 in rejecting the request of the petitioners for regularisation is by holding that there - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 is no provision under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the BBMP for Craft Teachers, Tailoring Teachers, Coir Teachers and the repairers of Sewing Machines. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has considered and issued the Order dated 04.01.2019 extending the petitioners “equal pay equal work” but has not considered the work of Craft Teachers stating that the said work is not notified in the Scheduled List of Works in the Minimum Wages Act, 1984 and that the names of the petitioners are contained in Annexure-C to the writ petition. 5. In this context, he would invite my attention to various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors Vs. State of UP & Anr – Civil Appeal No.8558/2018 – 19.08.2025, in order to point out that even persons employed through outsourcing agency can seek regularisation. It is submitted that the aforesaid principle has been reiterated in the various judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court and the impugned endorsement deserves to be set aside and the respondent No.3 be directed to regularise the services of the petitioners in terms of the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 following judgments on completion of 10 years, which the petitioners have completed as on today. 6. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the following judgments: i) Dharam Singh & Ors Vs. State of UP & Anr – Civil Appeal No.8558/2018 – 19.08.2025 ii) Pawan Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. – SLP (C) No.29214/2019 – 13.02.2026 iii) Mahendra Prasad Agarwal Vs. Arvind Kumar Singh – SLP (C) No.17141/2025 – 10.02.2026 iv) Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors – SLP (C) No.30762/2024 – 30.01.2026 v) Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors – SLP (C) No.5580/2024 – 20.12.2024 vi) Karnataka State Private College Stop – Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors – (1992) 2 SCC 29 vii) Bhagwan Das Vs. The Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.4478/2022 dated 21.04.2024 viii) Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors., in SLP(C) No.1347/2024 dated 22.08.2025 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. As can be seen from the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court have categorically held that even persons employed/appointed through outsourcing agencies by the BBMP are entitled to seek regularisation and mere labelling of employment is not a decisive factor, especially when the work is perennial in nature and the respondents and BBMP are not mere market participants, but constitutional employers, who cannot take shelter behind temporary labels for the purpose of declining grant of regularisation. 9. In Dharam Singh’s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), 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 “full-time” - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 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. 14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. 16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed. 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. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 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. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 21 grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. In Pawan Kumar’s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “9. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that the law laid down by this Court in Jaggo (supra) supports the case of the appellants in their prayer for regularization. In paragraphs 13, 20, 21 and 26, it has been held as under: “13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by 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. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 5, it was held that 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. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 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 longserving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” 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.” 10. The aforesaid observations are sufficient to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the appellants by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra). The High Court also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal. The appellants are entitled to similar reliefs as - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 granted by this Court in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra). 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court dated 26.08.2019 in M.P. No.3460/2018 is set aside. The services of the appellants be regularized from 01.07.2006 on the same terms as made applicable in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra). The benefits be released in favour of the appellants within a period of three months from today.” 11. In Mahendra Prasad Agarwal’s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “14. There is no doubt about the fact that the “consider jurisprudence”, so routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system. 15. When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow. The Constitutional or statutory remedies are not intended for academic discourse. If a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities is not to be confused with avoiding or postponing the relief. These are not matters of law, but of its working and practice. Unlike law and its procedures, good practices that evolve over a period of time are far more precious than written laws, as it is in this practice that we see acceptance and internalization of the spirit of law. It is - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 necessary to recognize, nurture and develop good practices which become habits. 9 These habits come from the shared belief, values and attitudes that breathe vitality into rule of law. Legal culture integrates collective beliefs, fostering habits. It is necessary and in fact compelling to keep our remedies simple, effective and efficient.” 12. In Bhola Nath’s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: 13.5.Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular. 13.6.This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, 10 this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7.In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 11 and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, 12 this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. 13.8.In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.13 , this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9.The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. FINAL CONCLUSION: 14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.” 13. In Jaggo’s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “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 - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 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 the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 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 longterm 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 - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 labeled 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 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. - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 • 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. 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” 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 - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 14. In Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association’s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “7. So far as these petitioners and teachers similarly situated are concerned, it could not be disputed that many of those teachers who appeared for selection in - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 pursuance of the High Court order secured sufficiently high marks but they could not be regularised because the vacancies are said to be reserved. But what has been lost sight of is that petitioners are seeking regularisation on posts on which they have been working and not fresh appointments, therefore, they could not be denied benefit of the High Court’s order specially when no such difficulty was pointed out and it was on agreement by the respondents that the order was passed. No material has been bought on record to show that any action was taken prior to decision by the High Court against any institution for not following the reservation policy. To deny therefore the benefit of selection held on agreement by the respondents is being unjust to such selectees. Further the State of Karnataka appears to have been regularising services of ad hoc teachers. Till now it has regularised services of contract lecturers etc. It may not furnish, any basis for petitioners to claim that the State may be directed to issue similar order regularising services of teachers of privately managed colleges. All the same such policy decisions of government in favour of one or the other set of employees of sister department are bound to raise hopes and expectations in employees of other departments. That is why it is incumbent on governments to be more circumspect in taking such decisions. The petitioners may not be able to build up any challenge on discrimination as employees of government colleges and private colleges may not belong to the same class yet their claim cannot be negatived on the respondents’ stand in the counter-affidavit that the regularisation of temporary teachers who have not - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 faces selection shall impair educational standard without explaining the effect of regularisation of temporary teachers of University and even technical colleges. Such being the unfortunate state of affairs this Court is left with no option but to issue following directions to respondents for not honouring its commitments before the High Court and acting contrary to the spirit of the order, and also due to failure of government in remaining vigilant against private management of the college by issuing timely directions and taking effective steps for enforcing the rules; (1) Services of such temporary teachers who have worked as such for three years, including the break till today shall not be terminated. They shall be absorbed as and when regular vacancies arise. (2) If regular selections have been made the government shall create additional posts to accommodate such selected candidates. (3) The teachers who have undergone the process of selection under the directions of the High Court and have not been appointed because of the reservation policy of the government be regularly appointed by creating additional posts. (4) From the date of judgment every temporary teacher shall be paid salary as is admissible to teachers appointed against permanent post. (5) Such teachers shall be continued in service even during vacations.” - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 15. In Bhagwan Das’s case supra, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: “37. The question is as to whether the services rendered by the workmen through a contractor till 02.11.2006 and the subsequent services rendered to the Municipal Authority through an outsource agency could be taken note of for the purpose of considering regularization of the petitioners services under the principal employer. 38. This very aspect was considered by the Apex Court in Shripal & Anr v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad4 [Shripal] and Jaggo v. Union of India and Others5 [Jaggo]. 39. The Apex Court in no uncertain terms has recognized the system of contract labour/ out-sourcing as methods of avoiding direct recruitment. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Jaggo (supra) are as follows: “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 the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 24. The landmark judgment of the United States in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation - 97F.3d1187 (9th Cir. 1996) serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 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: xxxx • 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." - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 The Apex Court has also specifically observed that the Judgment in Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked to defeat the legitimate claims of the employees. The observations at para 26 and 27 reads as follows: "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” 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. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country." 40. The same position has been reiterated in Shripal (supra) at the following paras of the Judgment: "11. Furthermore, the Employer's stance that there was never a direct employer-employee relationship is wholly unsubstantiated. If, in fact, the Appellant Workmen had been engaged solely through a contractor, the Employer would have necessarily maintained some form of contract documentation, license copies, or invoices substantiating the contractor's role in hiring, paying, and supervising these workers. However, no such documents have been placed on record. Additionally, the Employer has failed to establish that wages were ever paid by any entity other than its own Horticulture Department, which strongly indicates direct control and supervision over the Workmen's day-to-day tasks is a hallmark of an employer-employee relationship. Had there been a legitimate third-party contractor, one would expect to see details such as tender notices, contract agreements, attendance records maintained by the contractor, or testimony from the contractor's representatives. The absence of these crucial elements undermines the Employer's claim of outsourced engagement. In fact, it appears that the Workmen were reporting directly to the Horticulture Department officials, receiving instructions on their duties, and drawing wages issued under the Municipality's authority. This pattern of direct oversight and wage disbursement substantially negates the narrative that they were “contractor's personnel.” Consequently, the discontinuation of their services carried out without compliance with statutory obligations pertaining to notice, retrenchment compensation, or approval under Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, stands on precarious ground. The very foundation of the Employer's defense (i.e., lack of an employer-employee relationship) is not supported by any credible or contemporaneous evidence. - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer's municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project- based. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to long-serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent. 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) 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. 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 - 51 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 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…" 16. In Shah Samir Bharatbhai’s case supra, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “4. Academicians, lecturers and professors are the intellectual backbone of any nation, as they dedicate their lives to shaping the minds and character of future generations. Their work goes far beyond delivering lessons—it involves mentoring, guiding research, nurturing critical thinking, and instilling values that contribute to the progress of society. However, in many contexts, the compensation and recognition extended to them do not truly reflect the significance of their contribution. When educators are not treated with dignity or offered respectable emoluments, it diminishes the value a country places on knowledge and undermines the motivation of those entrusted with building its intellectual capital. By ensuring fair remuneration and dignified treatment, we affirm the importance of their role and reinforce the nation’s commitment to quality education, innovation, and a brighter future for its youth. 5. It is just not enough to keep reciting gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarah at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers. Xxxxx 31. The appellants were seeking parity of pay. The prayer for regularization, though made in the earlier rounds of litigation was never accepted. The facts of the present case are rather egregious. Assistant professors appointed on contractual basis during 2011 to 2025 have been working at - 52 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 abysmally low monthly emoluments for the last two decades. While there is no material whatsoever drawing out a distinction between the duties and functions performed by them and that of their colleagues appointed regularly or on ad hoc basis, they continue to draw monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-.” 17. In the instant case, the material on record clearly indicates that the petitioners have been Craft Teachers, Tailoring Teachers, Coir Teachers and the repairers of Sewing Machines in respondent No.2-Corporation and in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, merely because the petitioners were appointed as Craft Teachers, Tailoring Teachers, Coir Teachers and the repairers of Sewing Machines, it cannot be said that the services of the petitioners cannot be regularised and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 18. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to allow the petition by issuing certain directions. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 53 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19167 WP No. 36342 of 2024 ii) The impugned order dated 18.05.2023 at Annexure- A is hereby quashed. iii) The respondents are directed to take necessary step to consider the regularization of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders on completion of 10 years of service by the petitioners within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0