After Decades Of Uninterrupted Service On A Sanctioned Post, Karnataka HC Orders Regularisation And Benefits For Retired Daily-Wage Jawan

The petitioner was appointed as a Group D Jawan by the Wadi-Shahabad Town Planning Authority under a resolution dated 30 June 1987.

The High Court found that he worked continuously until reaching superannuation on 31 May 2022, and that his appointment was against a sanctioned post.

The Authority’s records included orders and communications indicating his service and recommending regularization; the Commissioner later rejected the proposal, taking the view that the petitioner was entitled to benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012.

The petitioner sought to quash the relevant communications and obtain regularization and consequential service and retirement benefits.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), as explained in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, a one-time exercise must consider daily-wage, casual, or ad hoc employees who had completed ten years of continuous service as of 10 April 2006, without protection of interim court orders, and who worked against vacant posts and possessed the required qualifications; eligible employees are entitled to consideration for regularization.

The Court also relied on Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, which cautioned against the indefinite use of temporary employment for permanent and recurring work.

The Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 was the basis on which the respondents had proposed to extend benefits instead of regularization.

The Court found that the petitioner had served continuously from 1987 until superannuation in 2022, that the post of Jawan was sanctioned, and that the work was perennial and essential to the Authority.

It considered the Authority’s records and prior communications supporting his service and the proposal for regularization, and held that the respondents erred in treating benefits under the 2012 Act as sufficient in the circumstances.

Applying the principles in M.L. Kesari and Shripal, the Court concluded that his service and appointment circumstances required regularization to be addressed with consequential benefits.

It issued mandamus to respondents 1–5 to act on the petitioner’s representations, regularize his services in light of the Court’s observations and the Supreme Court decisions, and extend consequential benefits in accordance with law.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the order; no costs were awarded.