Karnataka HC Reinstates VIMS Workers Terminated After 10+ Years, Orders Regularisation From Their 10-Year Service Mark

The petitioners in W.P. No. 101475/2023 stated that they had worked as pharmacists, lab technicians, a staff nurse and a documentalist at Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences (VIMS) from 2005–2007 onwards; the petitioner in W.P. No. 101654/2023 stated that he had worked as an electrician from 2012.

They claimed long, continuous service in perennial work without regularization and said that the Institute issued fresh appointment orders that interrupted their service on paper while retaining them in employment.

In earlier writ petitions, the Court had directed the Institute to consider their representations.

The Institute rejected the requests, citing Umadevi, and subsequently terminated the petitioners’ services in February 2023.

The petitioners challenged the endorsements and termination letters and sought regularization and consequential benefits.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, para 53, duly qualified employees who have worked for ten years or more against duly sanctioned vacant posts, without protection of court or tribunal orders, may be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.

State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, explains that eligible employees do not lose the right to consideration merely because the employer omitted them from, or failed to complete, that exercise.

The judgment also relied on subsequent Supreme Court decisions concerning the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments, prolonged temporary employment, and the State’s obligations of fairness and non-arbitrariness, including Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2014) 4 SCC 583; Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 13 SCC 432; and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 909.

The immediate basis for relief was the Karnataka High Court Division Bench decision in Smt. Geeta Ramappa Terdal v. Commissioner, City Municipality, Dandeli, W.A. No. 100680/2025, decided 16 October 2026, which directed regularization from completion of ten years’ service with consequential benefits.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioners’ case was that their service had been artificially interrupted by successive appointment orders, despite their continued employment; the Institute relied on Umadevi to justify rejecting regularization and terminating them.

The Court held that the Institute’s reliance on Umadevi could not be sustained in light of the Division Bench’s decision in Geeta Ramappa Terdal, which addressed the application of the regularization principles to long-serving employees.

Applying that decision, the Court found the endorsements and termination letters untenable and directed reinstatement and regularization from the respective dates on which the petitioners completed ten years of service.

The termination letters dated 17 and 22 February 2023 and the endorsements dated 8 and 17 February 2023 were quashed, and the petitioners were ordered to be reinstated immediately.

The Court directed VIMS to regularize each petitioner in the cadre in which they were working from the date of completion of ten years’ service, with consequential benefits in terms of Geeta Ramappa Terdal, within three months; a compliance report was also directed.