Continuous service exceeding ten years entitles the employee to consideration for regularization, requiring adherence to prior court directives and government orders.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the action of the 4^th respondent–University in declining to consider his case for regularisation of service, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has been in continuous employment for more than ten years, as required under various Government Orders issued from time to time.

2. Heard Sri.C.S.Shettar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Ramachandra Mali, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. The facts, in brief germane, are as follows:

The petitioner joined the services of the 1^st respondent–Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries on 19.03.1977. It transpires that the 1^st respondent engaged the services of the petitioner on a nominal muster roll or on a consolidated monthly pay. Owing to certain omissions and commissions, the petitioner was removed from service, which order came to be challenged before the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No.125/1996.

4. The Labour Court, by its award dated 13.04.2004, set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service with 50% back wages. The said award was called in question by the respondent No.1–State before this Court in W.P. No. 32828/2004, which came to be disposed of by the following order:

“9. Under the circumstances, petition filed by the University is allowed in part and the petition filed by the claimant is dismissed. While maintaining the order of reinstatement, it is ordered that the claimant would not be lout entitled to 50% backwages but no would be given benefit of continuity of service except for the period from 1994 to 1996 and he would not be entitled for any other consequential benefits”

5. The order of the Labour Court was modified to the extent that the petitioner would not be entitled to 50% of the back wages but would be entitled to continuity of service, except for the period between 1994 and 1996, during which he would not be entitled to any consequential benefits.

6. The purport of the aforesaid order is that although the petitioner was removed from service in 1994, the said order having been set aside and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having directed continuity of service, it would necessarily follow that the petitioner has been in continuous service.

7. After disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 11.09.2007, and continued in employment for about 11 years until he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. By that time, the 4^th respondent– University had come into existence, and the services of the petitioner stood transferred to the University, rendering him an employee of the University.

8. In all, the petitioner has rendered nearly 40 years of service continuously from 1977 till his retirement. During his tenure with the University, the petitioner submitted representations seeking regularisation of his services, contending that he was being left without proper service benefits upon retirement. His claim, however, came to be rejected on the ground that he had not completed ten years of service at the relevant point in time.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Government Order dated 06.08.1980, to contend that all daily-rated employees who had worked for 240 days were entitled to absorption and regularisation with effect from 01.01.1990, and therefore, the petitioner’s case could not have been ignored.

10. It is further submitted that although the petitioner’s dismissal came about in 1994, upon his reinstatement in 2007, his service stood restored status quo ante insofar as