Karnataka HC Orders Retired Sericulture Worker Regularised From 1995, With 40 Years Counted For Pension

The petitioner said he joined the Sericulture Department as a Group-D employee on 19 February 1985 and was posted to Sirsi in 1986.

He claimed that, despite completing ten years of service on 19 February 1995, his services were not regularized; he also relied on the regularization of a co-appointee.

He represented for regularization on 29 March 2025 and reached superannuation on 31 May 2025.

After the State failed to file objections despite adjournments, the Court proceeded on the available record.

The petitioner sought regularization from the date he completed ten years’ service, with consequential financial and pensionary benefits.

The Court applied the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, including the one-time consideration of eligible irregular appointees who had completed ten years in sanctioned posts without court protection.

It relied on State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, for the clarification that eligible employees are not disentitled merely because the one-time exercise was omitted or completed without considering them.

The Court also relied on the Karnataka Division Bench decision in Geeta Ramappa Terdal v. Commissioner, City Municipality, Dandeli & Others, W.A. No. 100680/2025 (16 October 2026), which granted a superannuated employee regularization from the date of completing ten years’ service and consequential benefits.

The Court treated that decision, drawing on later Supreme Court authorities, as establishing that superannuation does not extinguish an otherwise maintainable regularization claim and that consequential benefits may include pension and retiral benefits.

The Court considered the petitioner’s service from 19 February 1985, his claim to have completed ten years’ service on 19 February 1995, his representation before superannuation, and his comparison with a co-appointee whose services were regularized.

It accepted the petitioner’s reliance on Geeta Ramappa Terdal and held that the State’s objection based on Umadevi was answered by that Division Bench decision.

Treating the present case as identical for the purpose of relief, the Court held that superannuation did not defeat the petitioner’s claim and adopted the same remedial directions.

The Court directed regularization in the cadre in which the petitioner was working at superannuation, effective from the date he completed ten years’ service, with consequential benefits.

It directed notional continuity for pay fixation and other admissible service benefits, and required the entire 40 years of service to be reckoned for pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits.

The respondents were directed to implement the order within three months; on default, the petitioner would be entitled to arrears quantified at 50% of the salary entitlement arising from regularization, and a compliance report was to be filed.