The state, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of precedents to justify the indefinite continuation of daily-wage employees in perennial roles; such long-standing ad hocism for those in sanctioned posts constitutes an arbitrary violation of constitutional fairness and equality mandates.

ORDER ON BOARD

1. 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 time frame and given all the consequential benefits.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners were appointed on the post of Gagman/ Labor in the year 1998-1999 and since then they are working on the said post on daily wages. Petitioners have rendered more than 25 years of continuous service under respondent-department, however, their service have not been regularized. He submits that 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. He contended that the petitioners have submitted representation dated 06.08.2024, 07.08.2024 and 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) before Respondent No. 3 with a prayer for regularizing their services and therefore, direction be issued to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by petitioners, expeditiously within specified time frame.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that as petitioners are not pressing this writ petition on merits and are only seeking direction to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representations submitted by the petitioners, she is having no objection to the limited prayer.

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

5. The grievance of petitioners as projected in this writ petition is that they are continuously in employment since last about more than 25 years with the Respondents/State. 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 orders of courts or o