After 34 years as a daily-wage worker, Karnataka High Court orders retrospective regularisation and retirement benefits

The appellant’s case was that she entered municipal service in 1988 through a process initiated via the Employment Exchange, against a sanctioned vacancy, and thereafter served for approximately 34 years on daily wages.

The Municipality recommended her for regularization, and 12 of 26 employees whose names were forwarded for consideration were regularized, but she was not.

After she superannuated in June 2022, she sought regularization and consequential benefits by writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the petition solely because she had retired; she appealed.

1. Whether superannuation during the pendency of a claim for regularization extinguishes the employee’s right to have that claim considered.

2. Whether, in light of the appellant’s mode of appointment, length of service, sanctioned vacancy, recommendations, and the regularization of similarly situated employees, she was entitled to regularization and consequential benefits.

The Court applied the Constitution Bench rule in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, particularly paragraph 53, which permits a one-time consideration for regularization of duly qualified employees who worked for ten years or more in sanctioned posts without court or tribunal protection.

It relied on State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, clarifying that eligible employees do not lose the right to consideration merely because the one-time exercise was omitted or incompletely conducted.

The Court also relied on Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra, Sheo Narain Nagar, Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Prem Singh, Jaggo, Dharam Singh and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee for the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments, the relevance of long service, and the prohibition on mechanically invoking Umadevi to deny relief or treat similarly situated employees unequally.

Article 14 requires equal treatment of employees who are similarly situated, absent a rational basis for differential treatment.

The Court held that the Single Judge erred by treating retirement as a bar without examining the merits of the claim.

The appellant’s entry was not shown to be a backdoor appointment: it followed an Employment Exchange process and was against a sanctioned vacancy. She had served continuously for decades, her employer had recommended regularization, and other employees from the same exercise had been regularized. The State identified no valid distinction justifying her exclusion.

Applying Umadevi and its subsequent interpretation, the Court concluded that superannuation did not extinguish a claim that had arisen during service, and that the appellant’s circumstances warranted direct relief rather than a further administrative reconsideration.

The Court directed regularization in the cadre in which the appellant was working at superannuation, effective from the date she completed ten years of service, which the order specified as 11 February 1998.

It directed notional continuity for pay fixation and other admissible service benefits, and required the entire period of service to be counted for pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. The respondents were ordered to implement the directions within eight weeks; on non-compliance, the appellant would additionally be entitled to arrears quantified at 50% of the salary entitlement flowing from regularization.