Governmental entities cannot use ephemeral contractual labels to justify the indefinite exploitation of long-serving employees. Prolonged employment on sanctioned posts, where the role is perennial, entitles personnel to claim regularization as a matter of fairness and constitutional parity, provided they meet foundational service qualifications.

ORDER ON BOARD

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the series of judicial verdicts are referred above right from Umadevi’s case (supra) read with Narendra Kumar Tiwari’s case (supra) upto recent verdicts as a onetime measure within a timeframe as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

10.2 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. ”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are employed under the respondent departments on the post of Data Entry Operators/Computer Operator since 2011-12. They are continuously working on the said post since then, without any break in service. He also contended that the work of the petitioners is under the Mid-day Meal Scheme as provided by the State Government. Petitioners since the date of initial appointment are working on the fixed honorarium of Rs. 9,000/- and in view of the circular of the State Government as also, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services on the ground that the petitioner are continuously in service since last more than 10 years and are still working as Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that the petitioner has not submitted any representation before the authorities raising all their grievances as pleaded in this writ petition and have directly filed this instant writ petition before this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that they are continuously in employment since last about more than 14 years with the Respondents/State on honorarium basis. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra) considering that the daily-wage employee/temporary employee will not be discriminated to the extent of wages/salary as paid to the regular employees has considered the regularization of employees who have been employed by the employer, their service is not illegal but irregular and is continuous employment since about more than 10 years and observed thus:-

“ 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orde