Regularization of long-serving daily wage employees is mandated after 10 years of service, acknowledging functional continuity despite initial irregularities, violating constitutional rights otherwise.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

I. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated. 21/08/2023 bearing no. 512020/DMA/EST2/DWE/41/2021 passed by the 2^nd Respondent vide ANNEXURE-X in the interest of justice and equity and the consequently issue appropriate directions to the respondents herein for regularization of the petitioners from the date on which they completed 10 years of continue service with all consequential benefits.

II. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend all monetary benefits including fixation of pension to the Respondent No.3, 4, 7 and 8, in the interest of justice and equity.

III. Pass any other appropriated order yes as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to made the ends of justice and equity.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai and Sri.Chetan T. Limbikai, appearing for petitioners, learned HCGP- Smt.Girija Hiremath, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.C.V.Angadi and Sri.Sharanabasavaraj, appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The petitioners, most of them who have retired, are at the doors of this Court, seeking regularization of their services that they have rendered for the last 35 years. The facts would go this way. The petitioners are appointed on daily wages between the years 1986 to 1988. This is an admitted fact. It transpires that, in identical circumstances, the employees of the Gulbarga City Municipal Corporation come to be regularized. The petitioners then stake their claim for regularization on recommendation being made by respondent No.3 to the State, which is not considered by the State. The petitioners then appear before this Court in Writ Petition No.100799/2021, which comes to disposed of directing consideration of the cases of the petitioners for regularization. Even then the case of the petitioners for regularization was not considered, and therefore, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court, invoking its contempt jurisdiction.

4. It is then that the endorsement comes to be issued, solely on the score that the petitioners would not come within the conditions stipulated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 and therefore the regularization cannot be granted.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Desai, submits that the reasons rendered by the State in the impugned order is, on the face of it, erroneous as the petitioners have rendered close to 35 years of service, and most of them have retired from service. Learned counsel further submits that the issue stands covered by the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in a plethora of cases in the aftermath of the case of UMADEVI supra. Learned counsel, thus, seeks for a direction for regularization of services.

6. Learned HCGP appearing for the State would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned vacant posts and they would not fit into the conditions in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI supra. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any consideration of regularization.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The links in the chain of events are also not in dispute. The petitioners having worked for 35 years, and most of them having retired from service is, again, a matter of record. In such circumstances, the Apex Court, in the case of Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, recognizing the fact that the petitioners therein have rendered service for more than 30 years, holds that it would amount to exploitation of human labour if orders of regularization are not passed.

9. All these issues stand considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 105364 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 105664 of 2025, disposed on 15.10.2025, wher