Continuous long service in essential roles grants employees the right to regularization despite initial contractual labels, promoting equity in employment practices.

ORDER :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition, seeking for the following reliefs:

(I) quash the endorsement dated 28.03.2016 vide Annexure "AG" issued by respondent No.3 as violative of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition Nos.42116-42253 of 2001 dated 03.12.2001 vide Annexure "B" and the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.9573 of 2007 dated 07.03.2014.

(II) direct the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners and to regularise the services of the petitioners on completion of 10 years based on the clarification issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.03.2014 in the case of Malthi Das (retired) now P.B.Mahishy and others vs. Suresh & others, which is reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249

(III) direct the respondent to extend all consequential benefits such as difference of salary increment and fixation of salary on regularisation of service upon completion of 10 years of service."

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Writ Petition are as follows:

3. The petitioners are working on a daily basis, and they have completed more than 25 to 32 years of service as of now. Most of the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P. Nos.42116-42253 of 2001 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their case on par with the cases of Premakala Shetty, Narasimha Raju etc., for regularisation and for such other relief. This Court, vide Order dated 03.12.2001, disposed of the said writ petitions, by issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P. Nos.42096-42113 of 2001 (Vasudeva Shetty and others vs. State of Karnataka and others).

4. The State Government preferred writ Appeal in W.A. Nos.2598-2735 of 2002 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals vide order dated 14.10.2003.

5. It is averred that Vasudeva Shetty's case (supra) was disposed of by this Court by giving effect to the direction of this Court vide Order dated 10.09.1999 passed in WP Nos.33541-33557 of 1998 and connected matters. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.2765-2905 of 2001 vide judgment dated 23.01.2001.

6. As against the said judgment, Special Leave Petition was filed in SLP (Civil) CC Nos.7855-7995 of 2001. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP vide order dated 05.11.2001.

7. After the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government framed a Scheme dated 19.07.2002 by implementing the order dated 05.11.2001 passed in SLP (Civil) CC Nos.7855-7995 of 2001. Another batch of similarly placed petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions, and the said writ petitions were disposed of, against which, a writ appeal was preferred. The writ appeals came to be dismissed. The State Government preferred a special leave petition. The said special leave petition came to be dismissed vide Order dated 21.07.2005.

8. Pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2005 passed in SLP Nos.109-498 of 2003, one more scheme dated 29.12.2005 was framed by the State Government. Most of the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents for the regularisation of their services. Most of the respondents issued an endorsement dated 28.03.2016 stating that they are not parties to Malti Das case, (referred supra) and the decision rendered in Malti Das case (referred supra) cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned endorsements dated 28.03.2016