THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.6254 of 2019

ORDER:

The petitioner was appointed initially as a Casual Clerk in the

respondent company on 02.09.1987 at a daily wage of Rs. 24. It is his case that from the start, he was not paid a salary equal to that of similarly situated employees, which led him to file W.P.No.7336 of 1993 seeking regularization, and the writ petition was disposed of in terms of a similar case in W.P.No.8960 of 1987 dated 15.09.1987 based on a settlement agreement between the management and the union. This Court, by Order dated 02.06.1993, found the settlement binding and directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for regularization. Subsequently, vide letter dated 11.12.1996, the respondent informed the petitioner that his services would be regularized in the future and placed him at Serial No.15 on the seniority list. The petitioner, however, contends that this list was unfair, as individuals appointed as late as 1990 were shown as seniors. This prompted him to file a contempt case, which was closed on 10.09.1997 with a direction for the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner when

vacancies arose.

1.1 Following a representation made by the petitioner on

02.10.1998to fill a vacancy, the respondent, instead of regularizing his service, began to disengage him occasionally without written orders or reason, culminating in his final disengagement on 21.01.1998. The petitioner states that this action violated the orders of this Court in W.P.No.7336 of 1993.He challenged this termination by filing W.P.No.711 of 1999, which was ultimately allowed by this Court on 06.09.2012. This Court, by referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs M.L.

Kesari, 12010 (9) SCC 247 and noting the petitioner's service of more than 25 years, directed the respondents to consider his case for regularization within four months. The respondent's filed an appeal, i.e., W.A.No.927 of 2013, against the Order passed in W.P.No.711 of 1999; and the writ appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 19.07.2013. When the respondent failed to act on the regularisation of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a contempt case, C.C.No.498 of 2014 forcontempt. The respondent, after receiving the contempt notice, issued a letter dated 18.12.2013, informing the petitioner that his case for regularisation had been rejected by an order dated 04.09.2013. The contempt case was subsequently closed on 16.11.2018, giving the petitioner liberty to challenge the rejection order dated 04.09.2013.

1.2 The petitioner contends that the rejection order dated

04.09.2013, rejecting his regularisation request was bereft of any reasons for such decision. The petitioner further alleges a violation of the seniority principle, pointing out that several juniors—namely V. Uma Maheshwa Reddy, Satyavathi, D. Swamy, T. Anand, and Devaki Bai—who joined the respondent much later than him, had their services regularized during 1990- 92. He also states that other juniors who filed W.P.No.1766 of 1999 had their services regularized with effect from their initial appointments. Despite the petitioner, who is now working as a Data Entry Operator with a current monthly salary of Rs. 9,000 and with service from 1987 to the present date without any break, being one of the "senior most employees", his case remains unregularized.

1.3 He therefore challenges the respondent’s action in issuing the impugned rejection order dated 04.09.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Government guidelines in Office Memorandum dated

6.6.2002concerning the regularization of casual labour and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L. Kesari (supra).

2. Heard Ms. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned counsel for respondent No.2-HMT. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, making submissions in line with the writ affidavit, essent