Long-term service of daily-wage employees justifies regularization without state approval, and previous benefits under welfare legislation do not prevent such regularization.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

Writ Appeals No.705/2024, 629/2024, 711/2024 and 742/2024 are filed by the University of Agricultural Science ('University' for short) challenging the common order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.10632/2021 c/w. 4553/2022, 27469/2023 and 27478/2023. Contempt of Court Case No.646/2024 is filed alleging willful disobedience of the Order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27478/2023.

2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri. Vikram Balaji, learned advocate and Shri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Veena T.N, learned advocate appearing for the private parties; Shri Sachin B.S., and Shri M. Sreenivasa, learned counsel appearing for the University; and Shri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants are that the respondents are long-serving daily-wage workers of the University of Agricultural Science ('University' for short) – many of whom have completed 30–35 years of service. The workers sought for regularisation on completion of 10 years of service in parity with others who were already regularised, and non-discrimination in pay and service benefits.

4. The University in its 379^th meeting dated 05.01.2019, resolved to regularise 128 daily-wage employees including some of the writ petitioners. However, the Government by letter dated 18.02.2019, withheld approval to the Board’s decision and later rejected the regularisation proposal, stating that the employees were covered under the Welfare Act and not were eligible for absorption. Consequently, following the Government’s refusal, the Board in its 386^th meeting on 01.09.2020, withdrew the earlier proposal for regularisation.

5. It was further contended that 171 daily wage employees including some of the private respondents had already been granted all statutory benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees' Welfare Act, 2012 ('Welfare Act, 2012' for short) and that they are not entitled to seek regularisation.

6. The learned Single Judge noted that the Board of the University on several occasions had recommended the regularisation of the daily-wage employees. However, the sole impediment cited by the University was the absence of consent from the State Government. The learned Single Judge concluded that such consent was unnecessary inasmuch as the financial burden was to be borne entirely by the University. It was also noted that the Board possessed the statutory authority to create non-teaching posts.

7. It was held that the action of the Government in bringing 171 employees under the purview of the Welfare Act amounted to deemed creation of sanctioned posts. The bar on regularisation as laid down in The Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 was not attracted in the present case. The writ petition was allowed, directing the University to regularise the services of 128 daily-wage workers.

8. The contempt proceedings against the appellants stem from the non-compliance of orders in W.P. No. 27478/2023 directing the University to regularise the respondents.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.711/2024 and W.A.No.742/2024 that the a