2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41063

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Nagesh Hanamant Pujeri – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 105364 of 2025 | WP No. 105664 of 2025

Prolonged ad-hoc employment spanning several decades is inherently arbitrary and violative of equality principles. State authorities must consider the regularization of long-term daily wage workers, as historical judicial cut-offs cannot be used to justify the perpetual exploitation of employees in the service sector.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to equality - Prohibition of arbitrary state action - Regularization of daily wage employees - Continuous service for over two decades without interruption creates a substantive expectation and entitlement for consideration of regularization. (Paras 10, 11, 16)

(B) Administrative Law - Daily wagers - Uninterrupted and long-term service - Denial of regularization based on a historical cut-off date after substantial passage of time constitutes arbitrary action. The purpose of judicial mandates regarding employment is to prevent illegal future appointments, not to perpetuate the exploitation of personnel who have served the state for decades. (Paras 14, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
Daily wage workers were engaged by a municipal authority for durations ranging from two to three decades in roles such as maintenance and operations. Having never ceased their employment, the workers petitioned for the benefits of regularized status. Their claims were frequently rejected by administrative authorities, who relied on a specific historical judicial cut-off date for regularization. Previous judicial intervention requiring consideration of these claims resulted in further rejections, leading to the current challenge against the formal denial of status.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the employees had been in continuous service for over twenty years, establishing that their engagement was a matter of administrative necessity rather than fleeting temporary work. The court found that the state-authored rejections were grounded in an unduly narrow interpretation of past legal precedent, disregarding the decades of legitimate service rendered. Such prolonged ad hoc engagement without permanent benefits is inconsistent with the constitutional standard of fairness in public employment.

Issues: The central issues addressed were whether the state could indefinitely withhold regularization for employees serving consistently for decades, and whether the reference to a rigid historical cut-off date justified the continued denial of such claims despite the passage of significant time.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued employment of individuals on an ad-hoc basis for several decades is inherently arbitrary and violative of the equality principle under constitutional protection. The court reasoned that when a state utility relies upon staff for decades, it is legally and ethically obligated to consider them for permanent absorption, as failing to do so exploits the worker-employer relationship beyond the intended scope of existing judicial directives.

Result: Petitions allowed. The impugned rejection orders were quashed. The authorities were directed to consider the regularization of the service of the petitioners within a specified time frame.