Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Registrar, University Of Agricultural Science, Rep. By Registrar Dr. Basavegowda, S/o. Nanjappa – Appellant
Versus
Chikkanna, S/o. Ramayya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and representation (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of employment and regularization claims (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's findings on regularization and statutory powers (Para 6 , 7 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. arguments concerning past regularizations and statutory guidelines (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. implications of state government approval on regularization (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. judicial analysis on employment rights and past decisions (Para 14 , 18 , 29 , 32) |
| 7. final conclusion and compliance directions (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 34) |
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 couns
Long-term service of daily-wage employees justifies regularization without state approval, and previous benefits under welfare legislation do not prevent such regularization.
Employees with over ten years of service are entitled to regularization under the approved scheme, despite arguments against retrospective application.
Since there are no sanctioned posts on which any of these petitioners were appointed as irregular appointments, no such directions are warranted.
Since the similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefit of regularization, the University should have taken up the cases of the respondents petitioners on its own and as a model e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to regularization and equal pay for employees who have completed five years of continuous service, as per the Dhrubananda Mishra ju....
Continuous service exceeding ten years entitles the employee to consideration for regularization, requiring adherence to prior court directives and government orders.
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
