After 37 Years On Daily Wages, Sericulture Worker’s Regularisation Bid Survives As Karnataka HC Upholds Tribunal’s Direction To Consider It

The respondent, B.G. Hulyal, worked as a daily-wage employee in the Sericulture Department and sought regularisation and consequential service benefits.

The service-entry date is not consistently recorded: the High Court noted an entry in 1984, while the Tribunal’s account refers to an appointment effective from 19 January 1987.

The Tribunal allowed his application, condoned delay, and directed the State to consider regularising him as Typist/DEO from completion of ten years’ service, with consequential benefits.

The State challenged that order, principally contending that the respondent’s inclusion under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012, or the Rules made under it, disentitled him from seeking regularisation.

The Court relied on the approach in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and its clarification in M.L. Kesari: long service alone does not automatically establish a right to regularisation, but the principles concerning employees who have completed ten years’ service in a sanctioned post remain relevant.

It also referred to State of Karnataka v. Revanna S., which held that the 2012 Act did not displace earlier judgments granting or recognising a right to consideration for regularisation.

The Court adopted the reasoning of a subsequent Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 104676/2023, which relied on Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court authorities, including Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, and held that benefits under the 2012 Act do not, by themselves, bar a claim for regularisation.

The State’s challenge rested on the respondent’s coverage under the 2012 Act and Rules.

The Court considered a subsequent Division Bench decision addressing that contention and quoting authorities on regularisation and the effect of the Act.

That decision rejected the proposition that receipt of benefits under the Act alone prevents an employee from claiming regularisation.

On that basis, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s order; it did not separately resolve the discrepancy in the respondent’s recorded service-entry date.

and left undisturbed the Tribunal’s direction to consider the respondent’s regularisation as Typist/DEO from completion of ten years’ service, with consequential monetary and other service benefits in accordance with law.