Karnataka HC Upholds Equal Pay And Regularisation Consideration For Nurses Kept Contractual 20 Years After Selection Against Sanctioned Posts

The respondents were selected through a 2006 recruitment process for staff-nurse vacancies described by the Court as sanctioned vacant posts, but were engaged on contract rather than regularised.

They sought regularisation and equal pay for equal work before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed their claims, directing the State to consider their representations for regularisation and to pay equal wages in the meantime.

The State challenged that order, contending that the appointments were not against sanctioned posts and that the respondents had not completed ten years’ service when they first sought regularisation. The respondents maintained that the recruitment process had been followed and that most of them had subsequently been appointed through later recruitment processes.

The Court relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, particularly paragraph 53, which provides for a one-time consideration of duly qualified employees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts without court protection; State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247, which clarifies that eligible employees omitted from the initial exercise remain entitled to consideration.

These authorities emphasise that prolonged service in essential and recurring work, and the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments, must be considered; the State cannot use Umadevi as a blanket bar to fair consideration or treat similarly situated employees arbitrarily.

The Court also referred to Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055, concerning benefits for long-serving temporary-status employees.

The Court treated the notification, selection process and appointments against sanctioned vacancies as matters of record, and noted that the respondents had continued performing staff-nurse duties on contract for about twenty years.

In light of the cited Supreme Court authorities, it rejected the State’s technical objections and considered that prolonged service, the nature of the work and the State’s obligation to act fairly as a model employer supported the Tribunal’s directions.

It therefore found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s order.

The writ petition was rejected for lack of merit, leaving the Tribunal’s directions in place.