THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.28221 of 2019

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, precisely, as per the writ affidavit, is that he was appointed as a Typist, in a Full-Time contingent employee capacity under the control of respondent-Horticulture & Sericulture Department, in the year 1989. The Government has issued GOMs.No.212, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 wherein orders have been issued to regularise the services of temporary/daily wage/NMR/consolidated pay employees, who completed five years of service as of 25.11.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that except that he fell short of fulfilling the condition of five years of service by 25.11.1993, he fulfilled all the other conditions for regularisation. It is also his case that even as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, rendered in the year 2006, wherein the Supreme Court directed to regularise the services of the temporary employees who completed 10 years of service within a period of six months, the petitioner is entitled for regularisation, but his services have not been regularised till today.

2. Heard Mr. S. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit. He would further contend that the petitioner has put in more than three decades of service, but his regularisation request was rejected vide impugned Proceedings dated 25.07.2017, and the proceedings were served on the petitioner on 31.07.2019.Learned counsel contends that the

petitioner, on an earlier occasion, filed WP No.35544 of 2017 wherein this Court directed to regularise his services in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), but his regularisation has not been done yet.

4. Learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit, would essentially contend that as per GOMs.No.212, an incumbent has to complete five years full time service to claim regularisation, and the petitioner did not fulfil that condition. It is further contended that WP No. 35544 of 2017 was disposed of in light of earlier common orders passed in WP Nos. 45949 and 46007 of 2018 dated 27.02.2019, and in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in WP No. 35544 of 2017, the respondent authorities passed Speaking Orders informing the petitioner that it is not possible to regularise his services. It is also contended that as against the orders in WPNo.45949 of 2018 and batch, the Government filed a Special Leave Petition No.13813 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted the respondent- Department time up to 31.12.2024 to implement the impugned Orders, and the Government filed a Review Petition vide Diary No.58936 of 2024 dated 05.12.2024 and the said review petition is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, wherein the apex Court, by referring to the judgment in Umadevi (supra), held as follows:

26. While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments

adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where