Authorities must consider regularization claims after hearing and apply the governing law.

The petitioners, teaching and non-teaching employees of the Tribal Welfare Department, claimed to have served for over 30 years; some had retired.

They sought regularization after ten years of service, relying on benefits under the Karnataka State Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012, and asserting parity with employees who had been regularized.

After their representations, including one dated 14 May 2026, remained unaddressed, they sought a writ of mandamus. The State submitted that a report from respondents 3 and 5 was needed before the Government could decide the matter.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representations and decide their claim for regularization.

2. Whether the Court should determine the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to regularization in these proceedings.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court referred to Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, in connection with the criteria for regularization and employees who had worked under court orders.

The petitioners also relied on Malthi Das v. Suresh, 2014 (13) SCC 249; Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 909; and Rupesh R. Gaonkar v. State of Goa, Civil Appeal No. 13055/2025, concerning parity and the effect of benefits under the Welfare Act, 2012.

The Court did not decide the applicability or effect of those authorities; it directed the competent authority to consider the claim and relevant law and cautioned against cryptic or mechanical orders.

The Court noted the petitioners’ representations and the State’s position that a report from respondents 3 and 5 was required.

Given that the regularization claim depended on the petitioners’ pleaded facts, supporting material, and legal contentions—including their reliance on parity, the Welfare Act, and the cited case law—the Court considered it appropriate to have the administrative authorities examine the claim in the first instance. It therefore required a report and a subsequent reasoned decision, while preserving the petitioners’ opportunity to present their material and legal submissions.

Respondents 3 and 5 were directed to send respondent 2 an appropriate report within two months of receiving the certified copy of the order. Respondent 2 was directed to pass appropriate orders on the regularization claim within a further two months.

The petitioners were to be given an opportunity to present facts, documents, and legal submissions; all contentions on the merits were kept open.