Long-term employees, fulfilling essential duties, are entitled to regularization after 10 years of service despite irregular appointments, emphasizing fairness and preventing exploitation.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

A. Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date on which she completed ten years of Continuous service with all consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice.

B. Pass any other appropriate order/s as this Hon’ble Curt deems fit in view of the above narrated facts and grounds to meet the ends of justice.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Chetan T. Limbikar for the petitioner, learned HCGP Smt. Girija s. Hiremath for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and learned Counsel Smt. Vaibhavi Inamdhar learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner is said to have been appointed on 01.06.1995 as Balawadi teacher and later was appointed as ‘sewing teacher’ with effect from 22.10.1999. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working since then without any break and has completed more than 10 years of service as on the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The cut off date fixed by the Apex Court in the said judgment was on the date of delivery of the judgment i.e., 10.04.2006. In that light, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents, on which, the respondent-Municipality has recommended the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her services. The recommendation has remained on paper and the State is yet to act on the said recommendation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands answered by plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, all of which bear consideration at the hands of this Court in Writ Petition No.100156 of 2024 which was rendered on 20.02.2025.

“ 13. It thus becomes, germane to consider the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the aftermath of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (3) supra. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (3) supra is quoted hereinabove. The directions are also found in the paragraphs that are quoted. Much water has flown after the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (3)

14. As observed hereinabove, the Apex Court rendered its judgment in the case of UMADEVI (3) on 10-04-2006. Relevant paragraphs are already quoted hereinabove. Subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (3), considering the case of UMADEVI (3), the Apex Court in several judgments held and affirmed the right of several employees for regularization under several circumstances. The Apex Court in the case of NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND , (2018) 8 SCC 238 , holds as follows:

“7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnata