- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100119 OF 2026 (S-REG) BETWEEN: 1. BHAIRU S/O. KRISHNA AMBOLE AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER, CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL NIPPANI, R/O. ASHRAYA NAGAR, NIPPANI, TQ: NIPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237. 2. SUBHAS S/O. ATMARAM KAMBLE AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT, CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL NIPPANI, R/O. NIPPANI, TQ: NIPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237. 3. MADHUKAR S/O. TUKARAM MADALE AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: POURA KARMIKA, CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL NIPPANI, R/O. ASHRAYA NAGAR, NIPPANI, TQ: NIPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237. 4. HIMMATSINGH S/O. VIJAYSINGH RAJPUT AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL NIPPANI, R/O. SHINTRE COLONY, NIPPANI, TQ: NIPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL AND MISS. SANJANA S.MUDHOL, ADVOCATES) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.02 10:00:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRAION VISVESWARAYYA TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-1. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 4. THE CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL NIPANI, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237. 5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; SRI. R.K.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 5/11/2025 IN NO. 1268234/DMA/EST2/DWE/53/2023/3038 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 5/11/2025 IN NO. 1268234/DMA/EST2/ DWE/ 53/2023/3037 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-Q1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the impugned endorsement/ order passed by the respondents authorities, whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization of service has been rejected. Brief Facts; 2. The petitioners were appointed on daily basis for the posts under respondents as a City Municipal Council several decades ago and have been continuously discharging duties against the sanction and perennial post. It is the case of the petitioners that they have rendered uninterrupted service for more than two decades and, in fact has put in more than 25-30 years of service. The nature of work performed by the petitioners is permanent in nature and essential to the functioning of the local body. The petitioners were extended the benefit of equal pay for equal work, thereby acknowledging the long standing and continuous nature of employment. It is submitted that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 despite earlier directions issued by this Court to consider the petitioners’ claim for regularization, the respondents’ authorities have rejected the claim by the impugned endorsement, solely on the ground that the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others1 (Umadevi). Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioners have approached this Court in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned endorsement is vitiated by a total non- application of mind and suffers from arbitrariness. It is contended that the respondents authorities are mechanically relied upon Umadevi, ignoring subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court and this Court, which have clarified that 10.04.2006 is not a rigid or inflexible cut-off date. The petitioners have placed reliance 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nagesh S/o. Hanamant Pujeri and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others2 (Nagesh) and in the case of Ramu S/o. Hanumanth Kurbar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others3 (Ramu). As well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam4 (Shirpal), wherein it has been categorically held that the long serving daily wage employees appointed against sanctioned post and discharging perennial duties are entitled to consideration for regularization, notwithstanding the date of completion of ten years of service. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners' case stands on a very strong footing, as the length of service exceeds 25 years, the employment was not protected by any interim order and the respondents-local body itself has admitted the continuous service. It is contended that denial of regularization in such 2 W.P. No.105364/2025 & connected Matters D.D. 15.10.2025 3 W.P. No.107918/2023 D.D. 26.11.2025 4 2025 SSC OnLine SC 221 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 circumstances amounts to exploitation and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents justifies the impugned order. 5. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the material placed on record. 6. The particulars of appointment of the petitioners as follows: Sl. No. Name of the Petitioners Date of appointment Date and years completion of 10 years of service from the date of initiation appointment. 1 Bhairu Ambole (cleaner) 01/09/1991 1/9/2001. (35 years of service) 2 Subhas kamble (Assistant) 01/08/1998 1/8/2008. (28 years of service) 3 Madhukar Madhule (sweeper/poura karmika) 01/6/1997 1/6/2007. (29 years of service now retired.) 4 Himmatsingh Rajput (driver) 01/09/1996 1/9/2006. (30 years of service) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 7. The foundational facts are not in dispute. The petitioners have rendered long and continuous service for more than two decades under the respondents-Municipal Council. The work performed by the petitioners is perennial in nature and essential for the functioning of the local body. The respondents themselves have extended the benefit of equal pay for equal work, thereby acknowledging the continuity and indispensability of petitioners’ service. The sole ground on which the petitioners’ claim have been rejected is that the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, the date of the judgment in Umadevi. It is germane to notice that in identical circumstances this Court in WP No.107774/2023 and connected matters concerning a different Municipal Council has directed regularization of those petitioners by following order; 12. “The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, they are all a matter of record, the dates link in the chain of events, the appointment of the petitioners, are all again a matter of record and undisputed facts. The petitioners have as on today rendered 33, 29, 28 & 26 years respectively in the 4th respondent - Municipality, be it in the cadre of cleaner, sweeper, poura karmika or a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 driver, nonetheless they are all working in the 4th respondent-Municipality, from the respective dates of their appointment. Uninterruptedly, till 2025 i.e., today, the employment of these petitioners, are not litigious as their services are never continued on the basis of any interim order granted at the hands of this Court. They are in continuous employment owing their necessity in the 4th respondent- Municipality and the necessity still prevails. The 4th respondent has filed its statement of objections, where it is admitted that the petitioners are working from the dates of the respective engagements till today. The contention of the State that regularization orders should not be passed for the asking is noted only to be rejected as these petitioners have toiled in the 4th respondent - Municipality at their prime luth right from 33 years, 26 years respectively. Today, they are all aged between 56 to 60 years. If today they are sent home without any benefit of regularization, they would be wondering in their retired life. 13. In identical circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam reported in 2025 SSC OnLine SC 221 has held as follows: “3. The factual matrix leading up to the appeal before us is as follows: The Appellant Workmen claim to have been engaged as Gardeners (Malis) in the Horticulture Department of the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, since the year 1998 (in some instances, since 1999). According to them, they continuously discharged horticultural and maintenance duties— such as planting trees, maintaining parks, and beautifying public spaces— under the direct supervision of the Respondent Employer. They further allege that no formal appointment letters were ever issued to them, and that they were persistently denied minimum wages, weekly offs, national holidays, and other statutory benefits. In 2004, the Appellant Workmen, along with many other similarly situated employees, raised an industrial dispute (C.B. Case - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 No. 6 of 2004) before the Conciliation Officer at Ghaziabad, seeking regularization of their services and the requisite statutory benefits. They contend that, upon learning of this demand, the Respondent Employer began delaying their salaries and subjected them to adverse working conditions. Eventually, around mid-July 2005, the services of numerous workmen were allegedly terminated orally, without any notice, written orders, or retrenchment compensation. Since the above termination took place during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the Appellant Workmen argue it violated Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the State Government referred the disputes concerning both (i) regularization and (ii) legality of the alleged termination, to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad for adjudication. The Labour Court proceeded to decide the references vide two orders: (i) Order dated 03.06.2011 : In numerous adjudication cases (e.g., Adjudication Case Nos. 448, 451, 467 of 2006, etc.), the Labour Court passed awards holding the terminations illegal for want of compliance with Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement with 30% back wages. (ii) Order dated 11.10.2011 : However, in about 41 other adjudication cases (e.g., Adjudication Case Nos. 269, 270, 272, etc.), the Labour Court arrived at a contrary conclusion, dismissing the claims on the finding that the concerned workmen had not been engaged directly by the Nagar Nigam but rather through a contractor, and hence had no enforceable right to reinstatement or regularization against the Respondent Employer. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 Aggrieved by the adverse portion of the awards (i.e., those granting reinstatement), the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, filed several writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the Labour Court's findings. On the other hand, the workmen whose claims were dismissed by the other set of awards also approached the High Court by filing their own writ petitions. All these writ petitions were heard together, culminating in the common judgment dated 01.03.2019, which partly modified the Labour Court's conclusions. Through the impugned judgment, the High Court held that while the Labour Court was correct in exercising jurisdiction under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (since municipalities could be treated as “industry”), there remained factual complexities as to whether the workmen were genuinely on the rolls of the Nagar Nigam or were provided by contractors. The High Court also noted that the State Government had, by notifications/orders, placed a ban on fresh recruitments in Municipal Corporations, thereby restricting direct appointments to any post. Ultimately, the High Court partially modified the relief granted, directing re- engagement of the workmen on daily wages, with pay equivalent to the minimum in the regular pay scale of Gardeners, while allowing future consideration of their regularization if permissible by law. 4. Both the Appellant Workmen and the Respondent Employer have now approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. The workmen primarily seek full reinstatement with back wages and a direction to secure their regularization, whereas the Respondent Employer seeks to quash the modifications ordered by the High Court on the ground that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting partial relief - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 akin to regular employees, contrary to constitutional provisions and the State's ban on recruitment. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant Workmen made the following submissions: I. Continuous Service & Comparable Duties : The Appellant Workmen had continuously discharged horticultural and maintenance duties— like planting trees, upkeep of public parks, and general beautification—under the direct supervision and control of the Respondent Employer for periods often exceeding a decade. They insist such longstanding, continuous work parallels that of permanent Gardeners. II. Direct Engagement & Wage Disbursement : They aver that their wages, though inadequate, were paid directly by the Horticulture Department of the Respondent Employer, nullifying the Employer's claim of contractual hiring. Muster rolls and internal notes are cited to show direct employer-employee relations. III. Illegal Termination : Alleging violation of Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Appellant Workmen maintain their abrupt termination in July 2005 (during pendency of conciliation proceedings) was devoid of due process and statutory payments, rendering it patently illegal. IV. Entitlement to Reinstatement & Regularization : Given their long service and the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” the Appellant Workmen submit they deserve full reinstatement with back wages and a legitimate pathway to regularization, as opposed to the partial relief of mere daily- wage re-engagement prescribed by the High Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 6. On the other, the learned counsel for the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam made the following submissions: I. Compliance with Constitutional Requirements: Emphasizing the constitutional scheme of public employment, it is urged that there was (and remains) a ban on fresh recruitment in Municipal Corporations, and no proper selection process was ever followed to appoint the Workmen on any sanctioned posts. II. No Direct Employer-Employee Relationship : The Respondent Employer contends that all horticulture work was carried out through independent contractors appointed via tender processes. It claims any partial wage documentation cited by the Workmen fails to establish direct engagement. III. Inapplicability of Regularization : Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1, it is asserted that no daily wager can claim permanent absorption without adherence to constitutional requirements and availability of duly sanctioned vacancies. IV. Inadequate Proof of 240 Days' Service : The Respondent Employer points out that the Workmen did not convincingly demonstrate they completed 240 days of continuous work in any calendar year, thus undermining the assertion that their cessation from service was illegal. V. Challenge to Modified Relief: Finally, it argues that the High Court's direction to pay minimum-scale wages and to consider the Workmen for future regularization oversteps legal boundaries, disregards the recruitment ban, and fosters an impermissible avenue of public employment. The Respondent - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 Employer, therefore, seeks the quashing of the impugned judgment. 7. Having heard the arguments and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the nature of engagement of the Appellant Workmen, the admitted shortage of Gardeners, and the circumstances under which their services were brought to an end, merit closer scrutiny. 8. It is undisputed that, while the Appellant Workmen were pressing for regularization and proper wages through pending conciliation proceedings, the Respondent Employer proceeded to discontinue their services, without issuing prior notice or granting retrenchment compensation. At this juncture, it is to have a look at the requirements of Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has been reproduced hereunder:— “6E. [Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged in certain circumstances during the pendency of proceedings. [Inserted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957.] (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall, (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding, or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise any workman concerned in such dispute save with the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute, - (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding, or (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2) no employer shall during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute, - (a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceeding, or (b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman, such with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a ‘protected workman’ in relation to an establishment, means a workman who, being an officer of a - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 registered trade union connected with the establishment, is recognized as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf. (4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognized as protected workmen for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall not exceed one per cent of the total number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of five protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the State Government may make rules providing for the distribution of such protected workmen among various trade unions, if any, connected with the establishment and the manner in which they may be chosen and recognized as protected workmen. (5) Where an employer makes an application to a Board, Labour Court or Tribunal under the proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without delay, hear such application and pass, as expeditiously as possible, such order in relation thereto as it deems fit.” 9. On a plain reading of this section, we can deduce that any unilateral alteration in service conditions, including termination, is impermissible during the pendency of such proceedings unless prior approval is obtained from the appropriate authority. The record in the present case does not indicate that the Respondent Employer ever sought or was granted the requisite approval. Prima facie, therefore, this conduct reflects a deliberate attempt to circumvent the lawful claims of the workmen, particularly when their dispute over regularization and wages remained sub judice. 10. The Respondent Employer consistently labelled the Appellant Workmen as casual employees (or workers engaged through an unnamed contractor), yet there is no material proof - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 of adherence to Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates a proper notice or wages in lieu thereof as well as retrenchment compensation. In this context, whether an individual is classified as regular or temporary is irrelevant as retrenchment obligations under the Act must be met in all cases attracting Section 6N. Any termination thus effected without statutory safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly. 11. xxxx 12. xxxx 13. xxxx 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices. 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 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 Employer's failure to furnish such records— despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs: “xxxxxxxxx” 16. xxx 17. xxx 18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily- wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these long-time employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms. 19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.” - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 (Emphasis supplied)” The Apex Court was considering the cases of those persons, who are appointed on work charged establishment, the petitioners are similarly situated. The Apex Court was considering the cases where services were terminated, re-instated, pursuant to the orders of the Labour Court therein. Nonetheless, the Apex Court observes that they are in continuous employment for over 3 decades there and directs regularization. The petitioners in the case at hand are in service for more than 3 decades in certain cases and close to 3 decades in certain cases. In that light, the claim of the petitioners could not have been denied on a spacious plea that there is no resolution of the Town Municipal Council appended to the requisition to the Deputy Commissioner. 14. The Town Municipal Council has filed its objections accepting the fact that the petitioners are in employment throughout. If that be so, the very reason rendered by the Deputy Commissioner may be inter alia. But one of the reasons rendered is unacceptable, nor the rejection of the applications of the petitioners, is acceptable. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-S in W.P.No.107774/2023, the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-S in W.P.No.100470/2023, the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-P in W.P.No.100471/2023 & the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-S in W.P.No.100477/2023 stand quashed. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 iii. Mandamus issues directing the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners, with all consequential benefits, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.” 8. The aforesaid direction in W.P. No.107774/2023, the impugned endorsement hinges upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi stated supra, which has stood distinguished by subsequent judgment of the Apex Court. 9. This Court in Nagesh and again in Ramu, has categorically held that the cut-off date 10.04.2006 cannot be treated as an absolute bar to regularization, particularly in cases where the employees have rendered long years of continuous service against sanctioned posts. The said view stands fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in Shirpal stated supra, wherein it has observed that Umadevi cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate exploitative employment and that irregular appointments as - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 opposed to illegal appointments, are amenable to regularization when the conditions are satisfied. 10. In the present case, the petitioners satisfies all the parameters laid in the aforesaid judgment. i. Appointment against sanctioned post. ii. Performance of perennial duties on a permanent basis. iii. Long and uninterrupted service extending over decades and iv. Absence of any protective interim orders. 11. The impugned endorsement reflects a mechanical exercise undertaken without considering the binding precedents cited by the petitioners. Such an action is arbitrary, suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the rejection of the petitioners’ claim for regularization is illegal and unsustainable. The petitioners are entitled to - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 have a case considered for regularization in terms of the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement Nos.1268234/DMA/EST2/DWE/53/2023/3038 dated 05.11.2025 (Annexure-Q), 1268234/DMA/EST2/DWE/53/2023/3037 (Annexure-Q1), KRA.SUM:BGM:DUDC:1:CR:8:2025-26/1297 dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-R) and KRA.SUM:BGM:DUDC:1:CR:8:2025-26/1298 (Annexure-R1) are hereby quashed. iii. The petitioners are held to be entitled for regularization on which date they have completed the 10 years of service with all - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1017 WP No. 100119 of 2026 consequential benefits in accordance with law. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT/Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23