Authorities must consider regularisation claims applying the principles laid down inUma Devi.

The petitioner claimed that he was appointed as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) on 8 January 1996 and had completed ten years of uninterrupted service.

He sought regularization from that date, or alternatively from 26 February 2016, when another employee, P. Srinath, was regularized, together with consequential benefits.

The petition was considered at the preliminary-hearing stage.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and to a prior Karnataka High Court order in Ramesh v. Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration .

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for regularization of his MTS service from 8 January 1996 or, alternatively, 26 February 2016.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization in light of the principles in Uma Devi and the cited High Court decision.

The Court relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , AIR 2006 SC 1806, as the authoritative precedent governing regularization of public employment; it did not restate or elaborate the specific doctrine from that decision.

It also referred to Ramesh v. Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration , W.P. No. 102979 of 2024, disposed of on 16 September 2026, where the High Court directed the authorities to consider a representation and recommendation and pass a reasoned order.

The Court applied these authorities as the framework for consideration of the petitioner’s regularization claim.

The petitioner’s claim that he had served continuously since 8 January 1996 was recorded as the basis of his request.

Rather than determine whether he satisfied the requirements for regularization or grant regularization from either requested date, the Court directed the concerned respondents to consider his case in light of Uma Devi and the cited High Court decisions.

The judgment therefore left the merits of eligibility and consequential benefits to the respondents’ consideration.

The Court did not itself order regularization or grant salary arrears, seniority, or pension.

The matter was directed to be listed for compliance on 23 November 2026.