The State as a model employer is constitutionally obligated to regularize employees who have rendered continuous service on sanctioned posts for over a decade. Perpetuating precarious employment through 'ad-hocism' or exploiting 'temporary' labels for perennial work violates the mandate of equality and fairness under the Constitution.

ORDER ON BOARD

1. Petitioner has 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 petitioner 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 petitioner submit that petitioner was appointed on the post of Gagman/ Labor in the year 1998 and since then she is working on the said post on daily wages. Petitioner has rendered more than 25 years of continuous service under respondent-department, however, her service has 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 petitioner is entitled for regularization of her service. He contended that the petitioner has submitted representation dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) before Respondent No. 3 with a prayer for regularizing her service and therefore, direction be issued to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by petitioner, expeditiously within specified time frame.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking direction to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representations submitted by the petitioner, 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 petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that she is 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 of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recrui