The court emphasizes that regularization of temporary employees must adhere to principles of equality and fairness, ensuring parity in treatment for similarly situated employees.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. Aravind, J.

These appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, against the order passed by learned single Judge in the respective writ petitions.

2. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and other Electricity Supply Companies have preferred Writ Appeal Nos.200072/2022, 200074/2022, 200090/2022, 200091/2022, 200112/2022, 2000144/2022 against the order in W.P.No.201565/2018 and connected matters, dated 30.11.2021; Writ Appeal Nos.200147/2022, 200160/2022 against the order in W.P.No.200099/2018 c/w 205105/2018, dated 27.06.2022; Writ Appeal No.200156/2022 against the order in W.P.No.202822/2019, dated 21.06.2022; and Writ Appeal No.200179/2022 against the order in W.P.No.204622/2018, dated 06.12.2021.

The employees have preferred Writ Appeal No.200006/2019 against the order in W.P.Nos.200763/2016 and 200848-857/2016, dated 13.03.2018.

3. The parties are referred as per their ranks in their respective writ petitions for convenience.

4. The issues involved in all the appeals are similar and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

Brief facts:

5. The petitioners claim that they were appointed on ad hoc, contract or temporary basis against the permanent vacancies and as per the roster. The petitioners were appointed as Ledger Maintenance / Junior Assistance, Meter reading workers and Helpers from 1998-2000. The petitioners contended that their contract was extended till 2008. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed after an interview and considering the roster, age, marks scored in the qualifying examinations and performance in the interview, the work entrusted to the petitioners was permanent. While the petitioners were in service, respondents were informed that their services would be regularized in due course and placed on par with permanent employees with all applicable benefits. The respondents on selective basis confirmed permanent status to the other temporary or ad hoc employees. In view of the disparity, petitioners requested the respondents to regularize their services on par with others. Due to inaction of the respondents, few of the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.85580-596/2012 wherein, the respondents were directed to consider the request of the petitioners. The directions in WP.Nos.85580-596/2012 resulted in endorsement dated 04.07.2015 refusing to regularize their services.

5.1 The writ petitions by the petitioners challenging the said endorsement dated 04.07.2015.

5.2 The learned Single Judge by holding that similarly situated employees who were appointed on ad hoc or temporary basis have been regularized, applying the rule of parity, directed the respondents to regularize the petitioners from the date when completed 10 years of service and to provide continuity of service and consequential benefits. However, denied back wages.

5.3 We have heard Sri. S.S. Naganand, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Sudharshan M., learned counsel for the appellants-Corporation. Sri. P. Vilas Kum