Order On Board

20/02/2025

1. With the consent of both the parties heard the matter finally.

2. Since issue involved in both the cases is identical, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common order.

3. Both the petitioners have preferred instant petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents/State that petitioners be given regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment as well as seniority and consequential benefits.

4. As per the case of petitioners, they were initially appointed as ‘contingency daily wages employee/time keeper’ in the years 1987 & 1980 respectively on ad-hoc basis against the vacant post under the respondent authorities but their services were not regularised till 2004. Vide order (Annexure-P/2) dated 14.2.2005 & 21.4.2008 respectively, employment of the petitioners was regularised but regular pay scale, seniority and other consequential benefits were not given to them from their initial date of appointment, hence petitioners have preferred instant petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since petitioners were appointed as ‘contingency daily wages employee’ against vacant post, therefore, they ought to have been regularised and regular pay scale & other consequential benefits should have been granted to them from their initial date of appointment. He would further submit that identical issues have been decided by the State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1979/1991 as well as by this Court in W.P.(S) No.7651/2018 and W.P.(S) No.126/2019, therefore, petitioners may also be granted similar relief by allowing instant petitions.

6. State/respondents has filed its reply, wherein it has been pleaded that employment of the petitioners was regularised vide order (Annexure- P/2) in the years 2005 & 2008 respectively but they have filed instant petitions seeking relief of regular pay scale and seniority in the year 2019 i.e. after more than 14 - 10 years respectively. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that petitions filed by petitioners are liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and latches. In this regard, he relied in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Thorugh its Chairman &. Managing Director vs. K. Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322; Shiba Shankar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471; and State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri reported in (2015) 15 SCC 602. He would further submit that petitioners were appointed as contingency daily wages employee without following any process, as such, they are not entitled to get regularisation or regular pay scale with retrospective effect.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Undisputedly, petitioners were appointed as contingency daily wages employee in the respondent-department. It seems that their services were regularised in the years 2005 & 2008 respectively in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. As per their regularisation order (Annexure -P/2), they were being paid regular pay scale after their regularisation.

9. Now, the petitioners are claiming retrospective regular pay scale, seniority and other consequential benefits. The ordinary meaning of regularisation is “to make regular” and the effect of such regularisation would depend on the object or purpose for which the regularisation is made or the stage at which it is made. Once employee regularised, the procedural infirmities which attended the appointment are cured. In instant cases, it has not been demonstrated that the petitioners were initially appointed by following procedure applicable at the time of their appointment.

10. The question as to whether the regularisation should be granted with ret