The court affirmed the principle of parity in treatment of similarly situated employees and mandated regularization in compliance with prior directives.

ORDER :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking for the following reliefs:

In WP No. 13606/2023

“a) quash the endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 bearing No.R/Rect/ casual/Labours/ Endorsement/ 2022-23 dated 31/03/2023 vide Annexure-O, by issue of writ of certiorari,

b) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents authority to consider representation dated 10/04/2023 made by the Petitioners vide Annexure-P, to regularize their services in permanent nature with all consequential benefits such as pension, arrears of salary and other monetary benefits to the Petitioners.

c) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents authorities to obey the Hon’ble High Court order dated 30/09/2022 passed in WP No.7633/2022 (S-RES) vide Annexure-M,

d) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit in circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

In WP No. 13605/2023

“a) quash the endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 bearing No.R/Rect/ casual/Labours/ Endorsement/ 2022-23 dated 31/03/2023 vide Annexure-O, by issue of writ of certiorari,

b) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents authority to consider representation dated 10/04/2023 made by the Petitioners vide Annexure-P, to regularize their services in permanent nature with all consequential benefits such as pension, arrears of salary and other monetary benefits to the Petitioners.

c) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents authorities to obey the Hon’ble High Court order dated 30/09/2022 passed in WP No.7634/2022 (S-RES) vide Annexure-M,

d) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit in circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

The petitioners are stated to have joined the service as a casual labourers working in the third respondent – Regional Research Station. It is submitted that the petitioners have been working for more than 30 years and the second respondent has issued a Circular/Notification dated 12.09.2014, whereby, the second respondent has taken a decision that those employees who joined after 01.07.1984 and have completed 10 years as of 10.04.2006 could be considered for extension of benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012. The similarly placed employees approached this Court in W.P Nos.13263-13268/2017 as well as W.P Nos.3194-3199/2018 and sought for the relief of regularization. The said writ petitions came to be allowed. Pursuant to the order passed in the said writ petitions, the respondents were directed to consider the representations made by the petitioners to the University.

Further, it is also contented that the similarly placed petitioners, filed a writ petition in W.P No.34001/2019 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court issued direction to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, keeping in mind the observation made in the said order. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a representation for regularization. The respondents did not consider the representation. The petitioners approached this Court in WP No.7633/2022 and WP No.7634/2022. This Court, vide order 30.09.2022, disposed off the writ petitions directing the respondent-University to consider the representation and pass the necessary orders taking note of the observation made in W.P No. 34001/2019 disposed of on 16.07.2021. After the disposal of the said writ petitions, the petitioners submitted a representation vide Annexure – ‘N’ dated 30.12.2022 to the second respondent. The second respondent issued an endorse