High Court: Daily wage worker who worked for more than 10 years is entitled to regularization
A bench of the Karnataka High Court, consisting of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar, ruled that a daily wage worker who has served in a sanctioned post for more than ten years is entitled to regularization. The court emphasized that delays or procedural issues alone cannot be used to deny regularization of services.
Background of the Case
The petitioner worked as a daily wage employee in the Forest Department for 30 years, performing the same duties as regular employees in the role of a Forest Watcher/Driver. Despite his long and uninterrupted service, the petitioner’s request for regularization was rejected in 2016. The Forest Department argued that he had not met the necessary conditions for regularization, as set by previous judgments, and there was a delay in requesting the regularization.
In response, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), which dismissed his request for regularization in 2019. KSAT based its decision on the lack of documentary proof for continuous service and a delay in applying for regularization. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, challenging KSAT’s order and seeking regularization.
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner argued that he fulfilled all the criteria for regularization as per various government orders issued both before and after the landmark Umadevi judgment by the Supreme Court. He pointed out that the KSAT had wrongly applied the Umadevi ruling and had not considered later judgments, such as State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari and Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab, which allowed regularization for employees who had served in sanctioned posts for over ten years.
Additionally, the petitioner highlighted that his duties and responsibilities were on par with those of permanent employees, and his work was essential to the Forest Department.
Respondents’ Argument
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner’s engagement was not against a sanctioned post. They cited the Umadevi ruling, which stated that daily wage employees do not automatically have the right to demand regularization. They also pointed out that the petitioner did not have formal proof of continuous service, such as an official appointment letter, and that his employment was not officially recognized, but rather extended due to interim court orders.
The respondents emphasized that recruitment in the Forest Department requires following the prescribed selection process, which had not been followed in the petitioner’s case.
Court’s Observation and Ruling
The High Court disagreed with KSAT’s reliance on the Umadevi judgment, stating that it had been applied too rigidly. The court referred to subsequent judgments, such as State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, which clarified that employees who had served for over ten years in a sanctioned post were eligible for regularization.
The court noted that the petitioner had been continuously employed as a Watcher/Driver and his work was equivalent to that of regular employees. The petitioner had provided substantial evidence, including salary records and service certificates, which proved his continuous service. The court ruled that the absence of a formal appointment letter should not invalidate the petitioner’s right to regularization after such long and consistent service.
The court also disagreed with KSAT’s decision to deny regularization based on delay. It pointed out that delay alone should not be a reason to deny benefits to an employee who had served diligently for many years. Any delay in the regularization process was due to the respondents’ failure, not the petitioner’s inaction.
The court referred to the Jaggo vs. Union of India case, where the Supreme Court had ruled that the Umadevi judgment was not meant to penalize employees who had served for long periods, especially when their appointments were not illegal but irregular. It also cited the Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India case, which clarified that procedural formalities should not be used to deny regularization to employees performing regular duties.
Conclusion
Based on these observations, the Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that his claim for regularization could not be denied. The court concluded that KSAT’s order was legally incorrect and had failed to consider the principles governing regularization as outlined in previous court rulings.
As a result, the writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was entitled to regularization of his service along with all associated benefits.
